Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 10

E Vicipaedia

Natura[fontem recensere]

Id really like to add a categoria "Natura" to lat. Wikipedia, it seems there is already some relevant content (plants, fishes &ct.) but I didnt find out yet how it is arranged? or how it can be retrieved (systematically - mot by goto / search option). And Whats your convention about the vulgar latin names of animals that were unknown to ancient Rome or even in the middle Ages? And how do you handle ambiguous names (like: pristis = shark / swordfish [modern taxon]) Teutonius 19:53, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plants, fish and the like are currently in Categoria:Biologia. ("Natura" seems rather broad and fuzzy to me …)
There should be only one article about each subject. If an animal has several names, then there should be one article at the most common name. This article should also explain the other names. From each of the other names, a redirect can be created to this article.
If names are ambiguous, a "disambiguation" should be created. See e. g. Cygnus and Aquila (discretiva). --UV 20:03, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
shark=Selachimorpha, "natura" = "nature" as a categoray includes physics, geology, etc., which deserve to be separated from subjects specifically relavent to the study of living things. Biologia is a good way to classify those pages.--Rafaelgarcia 23:11, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, I dont understand yet: for ex. a page named "pristis" - should it (mainly) deal the issue "shark" in general - from its (original?) latin meaning" - or the animal "sawfish" that is acually a (sharklike) rayfish??? Besides I cant find (nor create) a categoria named "bilologia" on the category-page [1], how comes? Teutonius 07:48, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twice you've written pristis, but Cassell's says it's pistris, and in Latin it doesn't just mean '"shark" in general': it means:
1. Sea monster.
2. Whale.
3. Shark.
4. Sawfish.
5. Whale (constellation).
6. Small, swift-sailing ship.
7. The name of a ship (in Vergil).
You'll presumably need a disambiguation page to accommodate these senses. IacobusAmor 11:12, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoria:OmniaCategoria:EruditioCategoria:ScientiaCategoria:Scientia naturalisCategoria:Biologia. --UV 11:50, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Iacobus, Ive looked it up and found that there are actually three forms pistris & pistrix (= pristis), apparently a latin version with greek roots!? Yet the sawfish has the official name pristis, pristidae! 15:43, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just keep in mind that there is a difference between Linean classifications and the latin language per se; the term pistis pistris on the one hand may mean monster in latin, but may be used by the linean system as the technical assignation for swordfish sawfish. I am not knowledgeable concerning these classifications, but from the point of view of Latin and Vicipaedia, Linnean names can be treated as foreign words or borrowed terms, not latin per se. In such cases where there are contradictions or ambiguities arising between the two, the first sentence of the article can explain it, Like "X is the linnean term for Y." where X is the linnean term and Y is the latin term. The pattern favored in Vicipaedia is "Y ( binomen X) is an annimal..." (See Leo)--Rafaelgarcia 16:13, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
duae emendationes ab usore Teutonius 18:39, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is quite a lot of discussion of this subject area at Disputatio:Selachimorpha, including discussion of the meaning(s) of "pristis" (which is an acceptable spelling, incidentally).
This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; therefore (as already said above) we start with the aim of describing things, rather than defining words. But defining terms is still part of the job.
If there is no classical or medieval Latin term for the species you want to describe, then it's easy: you use the Linnaean binomial. And if you want to talk about a genus, family, order or class, you will most likely choose the Linnaean term, because those classification concepts did not exist as such before Linnaeus.
If there is a classical or medieval Latin term for the species, and its meaning is clear, you would normally use it in preference to the Linnaean binomial: as Rafael says, you would then include the Linnaean binomial in your first sentence (and in the infobox).
If the classical/medieval Latin word is ambiguous or difficult to define, you may well want to discuss its meaning on some page or other, and you may need a disambiguation page, but your first job is still to describe species, genera etc. as now understood.
OK, finally, to sawfish. As far as I remember from the old discussion at "Selachimorpha", sawfish were probably unknown, or practically unknown, to early Latin speakers. You can make an article about the family Pristidae and about the genus (if its approved name is "Pristis", call it Pristis (genus) to distinguish it from any other meanings of the word) and about any of the species; for the species I guess your titles should be the Linnaean binomials. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-ids[fontem recensere]

What is the correct latin form of words like "nucleioid, plastid, ..." and what gender do they have? Teutonius 08:59, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is like asteroides --Rafaelgarcia 16:14, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-oid and -id are two different suffixes. -oid is -oides. -id might be any of several different things; AHD says that 'plastid', for example, is Greek πλάστις, which would be Latin plastis, -idos or -idis [Greek third declension], fem. (In this case -id is from the Greek feminine suffix, so this corresponds to Lat. fictrix.) Other examples of -id might be from -ides, -idae [Greek first declension], masc. (e.g. canid, bovid, Heraclid...) —Mucius Tever 20:37, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me for my self-promotion but you might have a look at Usor:Fabullus/Declinatio Latina nominum Graecorum, and esp. the section titled Adiectiva in -ης/-ες exeuntia (asteroides, carcinodes etc.). --Fabullus 14:52, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordnung[fontem recensere]

phylum - classis - ordo // gradus? - familia Teutonius 10:42, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the question? The terminology/translation/correspndences are explained here: en:Taxonomic rank--Rafaelgarcia 16:31, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also have a useful table of our own at Systema taxinomicum Linnaeanum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell us about your Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Please Tell us about your Wikipedia language edition, answering some questions, and learn about others.--Ziko 22:20, 19 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I am placing a copy of the questionnaire Vicipaedia:Quaestiones here. Anyone who feels like answering a few questions, go ahead! I suggest each answer is signed; then others who want to add something can add their own signature. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm out of date. I think Rafael has already answered for us, so I've deleted the above link. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

taxonomia[fontem recensere]

Hi vicipaedians... are there any objections to my taxonomic index, or shall I use it instead / in addition to of the existing one? Teutonius 05:40, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2] quotation: "Concerning information: I do not think that information is what Wikipedia is here for. Information you can find via Google much more. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide structured information. To put four and more taxonomies into every plant article is no structured information, at least in my eyes. Ende der englischen Debatte, wir sind immer noch die deutschsprachige Wikipedia. Griensteidl 18:04, 19. Mai 2006 (CEST) ¶ Good point, structured information is very important. Structure requires a historical perspective. Presenting only the thin layer of the currently fashionable opinion (changed every day) will offer the user very little guidance. Brya 21:36, 19. Mai 2006 (CEST)" Teutonius 09:08, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In what way is it different from Systema taxinomicum Linnaeanum? It is something you made up? Or is it the same as the system used widely in biology today? Tell us what is different. Your not supposed to publish original theories on Wikipedia. A new taxonomy for which you do not have a specific source would would count as a new theory.--Rafaelgarcia 11:48, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia (Anglica), the system used by botanists differs a bit from the system used by zoologists. Also: a single officially approved system is augmented by several informally used systems. IacobusAmor 12:11, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My main purpose is to avoid a mixture of Linnean taxonomy and "pure" phylogenetics (cladistic) - I mean to preserve (a few) "clear" taxolevels and not to mix them up with non hierarchic clades and their (strictly) dichotomous branching. I see some confusion about both principles in the existent taxon-pages. Ive seen some cool pulldown [+] menues in the category-pages, but the source text doesnt appear... (how) can I create those menues? Teutonius 20:06, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those words "few, clear" sound very good to me!
I'm not sure if I am looking at the same pulldowns as you. There are pulldown formulae created using {{nav}}: an example that uses this is {{Encyclica Pauli VI}}. Perhaps others will give better advice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:33, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean those [3] here: Teutonius 21:42, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean the "Quaerere" box? That's the only pulldown I can see on that page. I don't think we can incorporate such boxes inside encyclopedia pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he means that if you press the "plus" signs in the categoriae, it shows a list.--Rafaelgarcia 14:21, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! I never tried that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:-)--Rafaelgarcia 02:43, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't delete discussion pages[fontem recensere]

It's against Vicipaedia rules to delete discussion pages. If your disputatio gets too long. You should create archive pages. ALso you should reserve disputatio pages for actual discusssions, not for creating tables of ideas.With the exeption of talbes to aid a discussion of course.--Rafaelgarcia 22:37, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Dear Rafael, i cant help, but you seem to be only quite negative, always reminding (me) of things not to do, what is your advice for the species pages (taxon-content) and my propose to reedit (revamp existing content) and gradually complete them (like the page "pica is a bird")... or should we rather leave this thema to species at wikimedia? (to avoid double pages in both projects)?
Teutonius 22:58, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is in your interest to have any possible concerns cleared up at the beginnning before you invest your time. As I stated, I don't know so much about taxonomy. If you have a source for the scheme you propose you should indeed use it. But it would be real waste of your time and someone else's if you made all those pages conform to this new scheme just to have them changed to something else because someone objects to your scheme being original research. So it is in your interest to clear this issue up before starting.--Rafaelgarcia 00:22, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Believe me, I don't mean to be negative all the time. It seems you've never contributed to a Wikipedia project before coming here and that explains what's happend.

I DID NOT CREATE ANY WHTSOEVER MESS! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevertheless, the thing to do is to create a subpage from your user page or write on your user page. You can write and delete anything on the user page to your hearts content. (Eg. make a link on your user page like [[User:Teutonius/TeutoniiTaxonomia]] and make the new page as usual. But the point is that discussion pages shouldn't be deleted. They may be of use to people in understanding things, since disussion occurs whenever people disagree about something and if one person disagrees on some point the likelyhood is that others will disagree too in the future on the same point. Also it gives a permanent record by which people can judge your interactions with others on the project which would become relavent, for instance, in the case in the future you were nominated for some office at wikipedia.
The issue of your deleting discussions came up before and I would have thought that you'd be attentive enough to ask for help rather than AGAIN delete things.

I DID NOT DELETE ANY WHATSOEVER DISCUSSION! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only reason I asked to discuss this here is that the way you've deleted stuff from your discussion page, it is going to be a difficult thing to put the text back in, which is necessary to do as a first step before creating a disputatio subpage, which the one for Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor. If you had only asked before creating this mess, I would have been very happy helping out in creating such subpages for you.--Rafaelgarcia 23:39, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I DID NOT CREATE ANY WHTSOEVER MESS! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see en:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, particularly the items:Modifying users' comments and Discussion page vandalism. Aparently I was wrong about it being wrong for a user to delete discusson items from his own talk page. He is allowed to do so. Apparently then, you can do what you want on your own disputatio page (unless its offensive or dishonest per the rules).--Rafaelgarcia 00:01, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I DID NOT DELETE ANY WHATSOEVER DISCUSSION! And once again: I have saked in advance, first about my color project, then also about my taxon project. Both are still within my own page and not messing around. If there is someone messing up Wikipedia, then it is not me... Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to these deletions: [4], [5],[6]. These were instances in which you deleting not only your own but also other users's comments. However, it was also my mistake because you were apparently just moving things around as can be seen here: [7]. It wasn't clear to me be cause no explanation or summary was being given, but it *looked* to me like large sections were being deleted. Again I apologize for unnecessaarily getting you upset; I was just trying to be diligent in doing my job and I made a mistake.--Rafaelgarcia 08:37, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accepted! Teutonius 09:25, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I started reading this thread I was not very happy. However, now it seems that all has been a misunderstanding. Fine :-) Concerning the taxonomy thread, I cannot contribute much, however, we should find a solution which is either obvious to all, even editors in the future, or which is well documented. Otherwise it might happen that making changes will be real waste of [...] time because editors in the future will change all back to whatever they think is the "correct way" of doing it. --Rolandus 11:48, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mantra[fontem recensere]

Commentarium coepi, verbis Anglicis celatis. Si rem augere velis, sicut Americani dicunt, "feel free"! IacobusAmor 14:19, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Episcopi Ecclesiae Catholicae[fontem recensere]

I put in this category only the bishops who lived after the separation between Catholic and Orthodox churches (1054). Does somebody believe we have to put also all the previous bishops in this category?--Massimo Macconi 07:43, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I answered on Disputatio Categoriae:Episcopi Ecclesiae Catholicae. --UV 09:28, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citrus × limon, sive de binominis in titulis usu[fontem recensere]

Nuper stipulam de arbore limone scripsi, quam paginam aliquis binomine Linnaeano usus Citrus × limon renominavit. Mihi quidem hoc casu nomen simplex, etsi non est nomen Latinum classicum, magis placet, quia magis naturaliter evenit scribere de limonibus quam de Citris × limonibus. "Hoc casu" dico, quod aliis casibus nomen simplex ambiguum videri potest, hic tamen minime. Si mecum consentitis, rogo ut pagina redirectionis Limon deleatur, et pagina Citrus × limon ad Limon moveatur. Eodem modo rogo ut, pagina Aurantium deleta, pagina Citrus × aurantium ad Aurantium moveri possit. --Fabullus 11:32, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has paginas nunc movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago! Spero alios nobiscum consentire. --Fabullus 13:44, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alia res, superiori tamen coniuncta, est illud '×', quod in binominibus specierum hibridarum includi solet, quod in paginarum nominibus tamen supprimendum videtur, quia '×' (item ac accentibus) difficile est scriptu et quaesitu (vide etiam quod Andreas noster hac de re scripsit in Disputatione:Citrus × paradisi). --Fabullus 11:32, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ibi nunc addidi: ego titulos "alphanumericos", sine symbolis exoticis, praefero. Alii quid dicunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum Andrea Dalby et Fabullo valde consentio. Res cotidiana sicut limon paginam nomine 'limon' tantum debent habere, et incipere "Limon (binomen: Citrus x limon) est..." (sicut apud en:Lemon faciunt), sed si nomen latinum cotidianum vel vetus non existit, fortasse melius fore est paginam nominare secundum illud binomen scientificum. Hanc sententiam habeo quod opinor Vicipaediam studiare modo encyclopaediam fieri, non librum biologicum, aut mathematicum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:46, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In binomine biologico, sicut nuper legi, "Citrus limon" est pravum et "Citrus x limon" est rectum, quod ille "x" significat combinationem artificalem (Anglice hybridization), vel quod agricolas artificiose duas plantas concrucifixisse (?anglice:crossed together).--Rafaelgarcia 13:58, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[concrucifigo = crucify together. Probably the better verb to build from is 'misceo'.] —Mucius Tever 22:37, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bella est ea formula lewshort ! Et recte dicis de misceo, sed quid dixit Mendel?--Rafaelgarcia 22:50, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ack! Mendel scripsisse Germanice non Latine videtur. Nostra pagina super Mendel est dubiosae latinitatis. At aliquis alicubi aliquando de genetica scribere debet nonne?...Hmmm.--Rafaelgarcia 23:28, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"plantae hybridae vel ex hybridisatione derivatae / ortae" ex reti & a Teutonio 09:09, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phrases in multis diagnosibus veris sunt hybrida . . . exorta et hybrida . . . genita. Vide Stearns. IacobusAmor 11:56, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Homophylophilia[fontem recensere]

I notice this category is anonymously spreading across a range of biographical articles, sometimes without justification in the text (though no doubt justification could be found in other wikis).

I'm just wondering to what extent it's appropriate to categorize people by this particular sexual preference. Some express their preferences as part of their public persona, some don't. If they didn't, should we? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have categorize only persons who have done their coming out or are notoriously homosexual (Leonardus Vincius). I see that the same categorisation has been done on Now I'll wait the others users' opinion --Massimo Macconi 10:06, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Notoriously"? ¶ Don't forget to include Pope Iulius III and other nonstraight ecclesiastical figures! See en:Category:LGBT people from Italy. IacobusAmor 13:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I didn't realise it was you, Massimo! Yes, we'll see what others think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's fair to include this category if the biography contains properly developed, sourced material to justify it. AlexTiefling 16:51, 30 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Alex. I didn't see it till now. It makes good sense, I think: the category ought to be somehow justified in the text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:25, 10 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quoting[fontem recensere]

Is it allowed to cite sources outside wikipedia with complete "ready-made" descriptions of animals and plants (or other things), or should I rather rewrite the text. Allthough those descriptions often follow the same rules and thers only little that can be changed if you dont want to describe a complete different plant... The sources I mean are online editions of middle age texts (old medical books) like: [8] Teutonius 10:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoffmann, your own example here, can be very useful as a source of text. No copyright problem, of course. If quoting, I think it is always best to do so explicitly (using "" or {{Citatio}} and giving the reference {{Lexfons}} in a footnote) because, if it's clear that it's a quotation, later editors are less likely to adjust the wording! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the name of a botanical species to be valid (accepted worldwide by botanists), a diagnosis of it must be published in Latin, and likewise a description of it in Latin. So somewhere in print you'll find a Latin diagnosis and a Latin description of every valid species of plant. I suppose we may find millions of such writeups; and in an ideal world, they might be collected in one place; but Vicipaedia, being devoted to a much larger array of topics than plants, may not be that place. The Latin terminology has become so refined that to change one word of a diagnosis might indeed change the referent to a different plant. IacobusAmor 11:45, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And these diagnoses and descriptions are in botanical Latin, which is a bit different from classical Latin, although close enough that it isn't hard to understand. Again (and I'm agreeing with Iacobus, I think), if we quote them, we should mark them off clearly as a quotation so that later editors don't try to adjust the wording. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, definitely: loci adlati non mutandi sunt! ¶ And yes, botanical Latin is way simplified, almost without verbs (except participles), and with few uses for genitives, datives, and accusatives. Ablatives rule! ¶ Does everybody understand the difference between a diagnosis and a description? One would think that those would have been the first articles that our taxonomist-friends would have written. But nooooooooo. IacobusAmor 12:59, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say: "diagnosis = descriptio discretiva" but I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus? (because for explaining words there is wiktionary).
Besides I dont intend to gather countless plant-diagnoses, but to post (selfmade) descriptions. I only want to use existing ones as an pattern for wording and structure. I dont think logical wordly coincidence has to be quoted too? @Andrew: my exaple is written by Blanckaert, not by Hoffmann!? Teutonius 14:14, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yes, I see now. The home page looked the same as Hoffmann. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

On self-made descriptions: fine & dandy for species you've discovered! IacobusAmor 15:02, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have "discovered" lots of plants (and taken photos) in Asia, so I only need to read some existent descriptions, in order to know how to write new ones by myself! Teutonius 16:34, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! Let Vicipaedia be an official site for the publication of new species!!! But where will the type specimens be stored? IacobusAmor 16:46, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, original research results are not allowed here. They must be published in scientific journals first and then a reference can be provided. See Vicipaedia:No original research, Vicipaedia:Verifiability, Vicipaedia:Citing sources; although in principle we can deviate from these on la, it would require that a consensus be forged. But that is the subject of a separate thread.--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding "I would say: "diagnosis = descriptio discretiva" but I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus?"
Well, contrary to the above, all the other wikis have not one but many pages on en:diagnosis, so there is much more to say about it than a single sentence.
From what I can see, what Iacobus means to say, is that an important fact is overlooked by the above statement, namely, that the referent of any category in the diagnosis comes from the the "way" the different items are described in "the context of the whole". Thus the actual "way" things are described in the "official" diagnosis determines "what" is referred to.
Also, perhaps the statement "I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus?", conflates many unrelated issues without presenting any coherent argument. A person could say the same thing, for example, about creating a page for every species, i.e. "I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about every single species and category". Is it right to call it spamming? Why? Why is your opinion valid? Really what is done here is a mere presenting of a personal opinion, labeling something as spamming, without presenting any argument other than the label and that it is one's opinion to back it up.
De: "all the other wikis have not one but many pages on en:diagnosis."—Yeah, but en:diagnosis has not one word on the kind of diagnosis we're talking about here (other than saying diagnosis is important in "science"). Biological diagnoses have a particular structure & style, usually consisting of fewer than about ten words; biological descriptions are much longer, and have an even less variable structure. I have a mind to Latinize that English article and insert some examples of actual botanical diagnoses (drawn from Stearns), but I'm busy right now, so anybody who wants to may feel free to have a go. IacobusAmor 18:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely a more constructive way to achieve a consensus is to avoid labels and present a logical argument, an illustrative exemplum, or an explanatory reference. --Rafaelgarcia 17:00, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My opinion is: vikipedia is not for explaining words (that would be wiktionary) but explaining things. And thats why I dislike those single-sentence "avatar" pages, that dont really say anything. Besides I didnt speak about original research (of new species), but about known species (as arum, allocasia, areca, lantana, phyllanthus, sinocalamus, ...) that I re"discovered" there in Asia and that I want to describe here using those works as a source, to avoid unnecessary neologisms. Teutonius 08:52, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De: "vikipedia is not for explaining words (that would be wiktionary) but explaining things. And thats why I dislike those single-sentence "avatar" pages, that dont really say anything."—Examples, please! Most single-sentence pages that I've seen are sub-sub-substubs, and they deserve immense expansion, but they're there because their creators (often usores ignoti) don't have enough Latin to do the expanding, though (as we say in English with quasi-clinical anatomical presumption) "their hearts are in the right place." IacobusAmor 11:54, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interpretes and translatores[fontem recensere]

We have usually called translators "interpretes". It has been pointed out that this confuses two modern professions, those of interpreters (of speech) and translators (of texts). And, thinking about it, I guess these would always have been two distinct skills. So should we call the translators "translatores"? If interested, please comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Interpretes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latinitas[fontem recensere]

{{L-1}}: what kind of latinitas is {{L-1}} (red point) - is it good or bad? Teutonius 23:54, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It means that some corrections are required. The yellow dot {{L}} means "not yet checked": the green dot {{L1}} means "OK". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see..., I only wonder, why its not in the Latinitas table, hence my question. Teutonius 14:12, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point ... I'll add it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category cleanup[fontem recensere]

I've just finished cleaning up Categoria:Homines manually by moving all the entries into subcategories as far as I could and deleting them from Homines. Now the same should be done for Categoria:Biographia (see also Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Categoria#About_Categoria:Homines_and_Categoria:Biographia - thank you Andrew Dalby). However, with regard to the number of pages there, it's not advisable to do it all manually. So,

  1. has anybody ever used the AutoWikiBrowser on Vicipaedia? Apparently not as it is not applicable for Latin. --Iovis Fulmen 20:48, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC) (I haven't.)Reply[reply]
  2. I suggest to semi-automatically delete "Categoria:Biographia" from pages which are in categories like Categoria:Papae, Categoria:Sancti, Categoria:Episcopi, and so on to the effect that only those pages which are already in subcategories of Categoria:Homines are taken out of Biographia and we can deal with the remainder pages later on (rather than just deleting "Categoria:Biographia" from all pages that have it). With this precaution, would you agree that this is a legitimate way of editing that category semi-automatically? --Iovis Fulmen 20:00, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations on your hard work with Categoria:Homines. I would certainly agree with your proposed deletion; or another approach would be to remove Categoria:Biographia from all articles that have {{Bio-stipula}}. I don't know whether UVBot is capable of doing either of these things? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:09, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your work on Categoria:Homines! I deleted all occurrences of [[Categoria:Biographia]] (without sortkey), making sure that all these pages are in fact in Categoria:Homines or its subcategories. What remains now are about 170 occurrences of [[Categoria:Biographia|sortkey]]. These pages are now still in Categoria:Biographia and should be edited (manually) to remove the sortkey from all category names and to add a DEFAULTSORT, see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#defaultsort. --UV 22:22, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et ego gratias ago pro opere efficaci. Quae remanent, paulatim aggrediar. --Iovis Fulmen 09:22, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of our biographies have neither Categoria:Homines nor Categoria:Biographia. What's to be done with them? IacobusAmor 14:44, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right, about 10,000 of them. They are the ones that are right (thank goodness!): they are in the many, many subcategories of Categoria:Homines. If you'd care to recategorize the 40 that remain in Categoria:Biographia, all will then be well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special Vocabulary[fontem recensere]

I tried to write the following article Domus Cupri ab Bauschenbergo but obviously failed. One of my problems was the special vocabulary I needed. The article should describe one of the oldest buildings in our city. It produced brass about 200 years ago. Do you know any source of information where I can get the required vocabulary from (words like brass, furnace, ore, mine, pit etc.) I would appreciate your help as I intend to improve the quality of the text and avoid deleting it. Best regards --BBKurt 05:29, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes all that terminology exists in the book "De Re Metallica" about mining, equipment, ore etc.. Also there is the book "De Natura Fossilium" which is about metallugy. THe books have lots of pictures showing the various equipment and things with latin names. Try google books.--Rafaelgarcia 06:04, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you intend to improve the page I have removed the threatening template and substituted one that asks other users to contribute: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree and I will do my utmost to improve its quality. Maybe some aspects will be skipped.The help of others is welcome.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid I get stuck even with the name: Domus Cupri ab Bauschenbergo->The copper house/factory from Bauschenbergum? --Rafaelgarcia 16:26, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The meaning is: The brass-factory with the name Bauschenberg (a small hill in the neighborhood). I don't know the Latin word for brass-factory. Thats why I called it the "house of Cupper from Bauschenberg.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know German nor do I know anything about the subject of the article. I really don't like to guess blindly or spend time researching what is intended. If you know english, it would be very helpful to give a word for word literal english translation of what you intend to write in latin. --Rafaelgarcia 16:31, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The english translation of the German word "Kupferhof" is comparable with brass-factory. The link to the article in the english Wikipedia may help. Sorry for causing inconvenience.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A factory is a fabrica or an officina (Cicero used the latter for 'foundry'). To cast metal is fundo, fundere, fudi, fusum (hence English 'foundry'). Do you have a Latin dictionary? IacobusAmor 18:25, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brass-factory is officina orichalci (orichalcum 'brass'). BTW, is it necessary to translate Kupferhof Bauschenberg into Latin? Other Wikis seem to abide by the German name. In any case. "Domus Cupri Bauschenberg" or "Domus Cupri Bauschenbergensis" sounds way better. --Neander 19:38, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could leave its german name and provide latin translation in parentheses : Kupferhof Bauschenberg (forsitan Latine: Domus Cupri Bauschenbergensis) nota orichalci officina erat colli Bauschenbergensi sita... " Anyway, by sifting through Agricola's glossaries, I didn't find a consistent term for "copper ore", perhaps "aes rude" or "aes luteum" or "lapis aenea" depending on the source?--Rafaelgarcia 21:18, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation request[fontem recensere]

Ave! I have made commons:Template:User SUL, it show where is the main account of an user's SUL and give a link to this account. Could someone translate this template for this local wikipedia?. Cordialement, Otourly 12:41, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide nunc {{Usor globalis}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. Otourly 15:50, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More categories[fontem recensere]

Iovis Fulmen spurs me to go to work on the Scriptores categories (I worked on the Scripta/Litterae categories a few months ago) -- with the help of UVBot if UV is willing. My aim will be to allocate to each writer two categories, one for country of origin, one for language. So that they are more obviously distinct, I propose to name the country categories (in our current style) Scriptores Franciae etc., but the language categories diffferently, Auctores Latini etc. Does anyone object, or have better suggestions? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to deploy double national categories for W. H. Auden, Joseph Conrad, T. E. Eliot, V. V. Nabokov, and certain other writers. IacobusAmor 15:39, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I didn't make that clear, but I agree that some writers can't be pinned down to one (or even two) countries. And some, including Nabokov, can't be pinned to one language either. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:05, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I especially like the choice of terms, with "scriptores" as the maybe more general one (though not as obscenely general as "scriba") referring to the more general classification of origin/abode and "auctores", in itself implying some actual intellectual achievement, being used for the language used in the authors' works. --Iovis Fulmen 16:14, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auctores Anglici[fontem recensere]

I take Auctores Anglici to mean 'English authors', 'authors from England'. If you mean 'authors who wrote in English', I suppose you're referring to Anglicum 'the English language,' on the analogy of Graecum 'the Greek language' (in Cassell's), but that's not going to be readily apparent, is it? Maybe Auctores Anglicae (scil. linguae) would be clearer? or just spell it out: Auctores linguae Anglicae? But is that idiomatic? These categories can be quite puzzling! IacobusAmor 14:44, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any other comments on this issue? Not just English, but other languages too: we ought to have a standard form. Now's the time, as the creation of these writers-by-language categories is about to begin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoa! We're in at the creation! In that case, what's the diff between an auctor and a scriptor? and between an auctor and a poeta who publishes his/her poemata? IacobusAmor 15:04, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You took part in the discussion above. Read it again and you'll see what the difference is between Scriptores and Auctores (i.e. practically no difference, except in terms of the proposed category structure). I think you know, without my telling you, that Poetae (if they work in writing) are a subcategory of Auctores/Scriptores. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take Iacobus's point that Auctores Anglici is ambiguous. Some other similar terms, however, will be more-or-less unambiguous; Auctores Latini for example should be OK (unless someone takes that to mean "Authors from Latium"!)
The two obvious solutions are (a) to devise a more explicit (and still grammatically acceptable) wording, or (b) to explain unambiguously at the top of the category page what the brief wording means (e.g. "Categoria:Auctores Italici: Auctores qui Italice scripserunt." I don't mind which solution we follow, but it would be best if we have a consensus. If we adopt a more explicit wording, what's it to be? Will Categoria:Auctores linguae Italicae suit us, or do we also need to change the word order? Please comment! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer your original wording. It works in most cases, doesn't it? --Iovis Fulmen 05:23, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, then, I'll try it (with explanation where necessary), and we'll see how it looks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoriam "Auctores Anglici" in commentario Savea Sano Malifa addidimus, sed ruber manet. ¶ Nunc ut videtur habemus categorias Scriptores Samoae = Samoa's writers et Auctores Samoani = Samoan's authors. I'm not sure this kind of distinction will be instantly transparent to any but the most dedicated of readers. IacobusAmor 14:52, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoriam Categoria:Auctores Samoani pro te creavi -- ecce generositatem meam! Inter hanc et Categoria:Scriptores Samoae potes nexus creare si vis. Nota explicationes in capite paginarum. Observa: creationem categoriae Categoria:Auctores Anglici mox vides. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Manemus cum "spiritu imminuto"! IacobusAmor 16:19, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias, O UVBot, qui precibus nostris respondet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Histriones / Actores[fontem recensere]

The discussion may not belong here, but since Categoria:Actores still is -despite linguistic criticism- alive and kicking, just as Categoria:Histriones is empty:

  1. How about keeping both: Actores for film, and histriones for stage
  2. Or perhaps histriones for both, actores for film and artifices scaenici (Lexicon recentis latinitatis) for stage?

- although the actores pellicularum are still in the majority, there are quite a number of actors on stage around meanwhile. --Iovis Fulmen 20:20, 8 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think it's a good idea to distinguish them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 8 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of categories[fontem recensere]

May I urge that all categories at the bottom of articles be put in a standard order. The one that seems best to me so far is: (1) Nati [annus]; (2) Mortui [annus]; (3) any other categories, in alphabetical order. (Obviously, for nonbiographies, only the third set would appear.) Do any other categories ask to be given pride of (nonalphabetical) place? IacobusAmor 18:35, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me make a different proposal: I would suggest to order categories by decreasing "claim to fame". I would find it strange to read in Alexander Magnus' categories Categoria:Homophylophilia before Categoria:Reges Macedonum just because the former category happens to precede the latter when sorting alphabetically. For articles about persons, this suggestion usually results in:
  1. category for profession
  2. category for nationality, may be combined with the preceding one if there exists a combined category such as Categoria:Birotarii Francici
  3. any other applicable categories
  4. Categoria:Mulieres if the person's gender is female
  5. category for year of birth and category for year of death.
Any other views? --UV 18:50, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly agree with the principle. How easy do you think it would be to achieve it in practice? Are there automata that could help us with this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify (as requested just below!) I agree with UV's suggested principle, but wonder how easy it would be to achieve. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You agree with which principle? The universally standard orders for lists are alphabetical & numerical. I thought I was being bold in proposing an exception, by which Nati & Mortui would be put first so that they might appear in the layout at the same place on all pages. Any other ordering is going to put them in random places. In reference works, consistency in all important respects is a virtue, and the layout is one of those respects. (Our layout of lemmas, and of the first images of articles, and of taxoboxes & such, is invariably consistent. Why should the layout of categories not also be?) Lists ordered by supposed "claim to fame" must appear chaotic to a reader whose sense of fame differs from that of the writer. Because the default that I'd expect for verbal lists is alphabetical, I'd be surprised to find Categoria:Reges Macedonum placed ahead of Categoria:Homophylophilia. Also, even the proposed claim-to-fame ordering is debatable: though Alexander's rank as king must have been supersalient in his own time, his sexual activity may seem so to some readers in ours, readers who'll know him only as some famous old dude who was gay (because they've found him in a book about famous old dudes who were gay). That's of course a forced example, but I'm sure that more plausible examples can be found. ¶ Some people have had multiple "professions" (king, musician, poet, writer), and again their ordering poses difficulties in any but an alphabetical list. ¶ A quick review of this issue in the English wikipedia suggests that no standard has been set over there (except that there's a strong tendency to put Nati & Mortui first, and then the rest in alphabetical order); but I may have missed something, so people may want to check. IacobusAmor 11:09, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Alexander the Great, since he's been cited as an example here, the English wikipedia puts Nati & Mortui first, and then goes into what seems random order: 356 BC births | 323 BC deaths | People from Central Macedonia | Adoptees | Alexander the Great | Ancient Macedonian generals | Cause of death disputed | City founders | Hellenistic individuals | LGBT royalty | LGBT people from Greece | Macedonian monarchs | Ancient Pellaeans | Monarchs of Persia | Mummies | Pharaohs of the Argead dynasty. Napoleon is in perfect order: 1769 births | 1821 deaths | Culture heroes | Deaths from stomach cancer | Dictatorship | First French Empire | French adoptive parents | French commanders of the Napoleonic Wars | French emperors | French exiles | French people of Italian descent | House of Bonaparte | Knights of the Golden Fleece | Leaders who took power by coup | Members of the French Academy of Sciences | Military leaders of the French Revolutionary Wars | Napoleon | People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church | People from Ajaccio | Princes of Andorra. Abraham Lincoln & George Washington follow Napoleon's model, but Louis XIV is chaotic. Victoria of the United Kingdom, judged by either an alphabetical or a claim-to-fame standard, is unsuccessful (why do Widows follow the Nati & Mortui?): Deaths from cerebral hemorrhage | English diarists | English and British princesses | English and British Queens regnant | Founders of English schools and colleges | Hanoverian princesses | Heads of state of Canada | Heads of state of New Zealand | House of Hanover | Indian empresses | Monarchs of Australia | Monarchs of the United Kingdom | Queens regnant | People from Kensington | Protestant monarchs | Victorian era | 1819 births | 1901 deaths | Widows. Charlemagne has Nati & Mortui first and then becomes not quite alphabetical. Shakespeare has Nati & Mortui last. The world is a mess, it seems! IacobusAmor 11:23, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realise this is both late and off-topic, but where do people get this strange idea of Alexander the Great having been gay? If he was, then so was every old Greek dude who had it for young Greek dudes, which means pretty much all of them. What I am trying to say, I guess, is that the "LGBT" tag is out of place and misleading in a classical Greek context (possibly any non-modern Western context).- On the substance of the issue: Why should categories be arranged in any particular order at all? I fail to see the need for a rule.--Ceylon 20:27, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my long absence during the summer - before we decide on a set order of categories, I wonder if it would be possible for a bot to organise them in the way we decide, if not, all our 22.348 pages will have their categopries at random while the new ones will have the new standard order--Xaverius 11:30, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot avenue
  1. I am sure that it would be possible for a bot to establish an alphabetical order, or an alphabetical order with the exception of putting Nati and Mortui either at the beginning or at the end. I do, however, not know of an existing bot that is already programmed to perform this task.
  2. No bot can reliably perform "claim to fame"-sorting, for obvious reasons.
  3. Problem with category sorting (by bot or by editing the page manually): Whenever a category is not added directly to a page but via a template included in a page (which is, in my view, a good thing in many cases, for example the {{Papa}} infobox automatically adds the page that uses this infobox to Categoria:Papae), there is no good way to influence category order. This will most probably adversely affect "alphabetical" sorting and may adversely affect "claim to fame" sorting.
The gadget avenue
  1. I am sure that it would be possible to program a Vicipaedia:Gadget that displays all categories in alphabetical order (again, Nati and Mortui can receive special treatment) for all users that decide to enable this gadget in Specialis:Preferences. It would even be possible to enable this for all users in MediaWiki:Common.js but I am rather hesitant in forcing much functionality to go there, as this would slow down the page loading time for all users a bit.
  2. Reliable automatic "claim to fame"-sorting: No, of course not.
  3. No problem with categories added via a template! These categories can be sorted alphabetically as well along with the others, without any problem.
On the merits
There have been a number of examples from en.wikipedia. Let me just briefly describe the rules and guidelines in de.wikipedia, which does not apply alphabetical sorting: In general, categories should be sorted "from special categories to general categories" (ref) (where special/general is not to be confused with subcategory/supercategory). For articles about persons, "no exact order is prescribed, but the order should go from special categories to general categories, which means first the profession, then the nationality, then born/died and then man/woman." (ref).
--UV 21:19, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose the first question is, who looks at the list of categories at the foot of a page, and why?
I guess the answer is (a) users look at it to find other pages related to the one they are reading; (b) assiduous editors look at it to verify that all appropriate categories have been applied. Both, I think, tend to be looking for kinds-of-categories rather than for specifically named categories
Therefore I think the de:wiki practice (modified, probably) would be the most helpful to both types of reader, but UV's explanation -- and Iacobus's examples from en:wiki -- confirm to me that it could be difficult for us to impose that kind of logical order. Maybe not too difficult right now, but imagine sorting a list of the length en:wiki gives to Napoleon or Victoria: [[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] (disputatio) 12:02, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
Ha! en:Michael Phelps = Michael Phelps is only one or two behind them, and he's closing fast!!! IacobusAmor 12:43, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and many en:wiki pages have category lists of such length or longer. You yourself, Iacobe, like to add longish lists of categories even now!
I suppose there is one possible way we could help the bots, or the gadgets, to do what we want. We could label our categories with our own "scale of priorities". All the Nati and Mortui categories already contain a formula, so they are maybe labelled already. Is this a possible approach?
Alternatively, we could file them alphabetically, as Iacobus suggests. But I think a logical order would be more helpful in practice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the most "logical" order alphabetical? Even using the criteria outlined above, different contributors will use different logics, or at least different appreciations of historical effect or conceptual worth, to rank their categories differently. The only order unsusceptible of argument is an alphabetical one. (I suppose random order would be similarly neutral, but it would surely be unuseful!) The reason I'd make an exception for Nati & Mortui (and Vivi) is that an alphabetical order would put them in different places on different pages, as would a decision to put them always at the end; if they're put at the start, they'll appear at the same location on every page. They deserve to be a consistent exception because every biographical article will have them. IacobusAmor 13:31, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno if alphabetical order is 'logical' at all (it's *standard*, which makes it easy to find a category if you know what its name is—not necessarily a given when word order is free—and that's about it). I agree that a logical ordering would be in order from most specific to most general; of course, a bot won't know what's special and what's general, but presumably something could be gleaned from the number of other entries in a category (if a topic is one of only five members in a category, it is presumably a more relevant characteristic to that topic than if it's one of a thousand). —Mucius Tever 22:49, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that different contributors will have different appreciations of historical effect or conceptual worth. But in order to find a somewhat appropriate order of categories, much less judgment is necessary than the judgment that is necessary to decide on how to arrange a set of facts to form a Vicipaedia article (not to speak of the step just before: selecting what information should go in a Vicipaedia article and what information, being relatively immaterial, needs not to be put into the article at this time). No Vicipaedia article, therefore, is "neutral": It embodies a plethora of editorial choices, some of them being more subtle than others. If we have managed up to now to create a significant number of Vicipaedia articles with a text that has an acceptable degree of NPOV, then we will definitely be able to establish an order of categories that is appropriate for the article at hand, and sufficiently "neutral". --UV 23:32, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if we were able to "establish an order of categories that is appropriate for the article at hand, and sufficiently 'neutral'" (and I'm less sanguine about our ability to do that), the order of the same categories would differ from article to article, and would therefore introduce a measure of inconsistency into the result. (In reference works, inconsistency is a terrible crime.) For example, a category Auctores Anglici would be right at the top of a list in the biography of Carolus Dickens, but it would most definitely not be at the top in the biography of Beniaminus Disraeli. ¶ Amusing aside: checking Wikipedia, I happened to notice that the categories for births & deaths appear at the start of the list for Disraeli, but at the finish for Gladstone, his archenemy! ¶ Say, why is Vicipaedia not distinguishing between authors of fiction and authors of nonfiction, as Wikipedia does? IacobusAmor 11:55, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Habemus Categoria:Scriptores mythistoriarum. Utere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but it'll eventually include tens (or hundreds) of thousands of names, so shouldn't we break it down to have Scriptores mythistoriarum Anglici and Scriptores mythistoriarum Samoani and so on? IacobusAmor 16:22, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe. Personally I don't feel sure yet whether that would be the most useful breakdown. The fact that en:wiki does it that way doesn't make it right for us. As far as I'm concerned, we could wait a bit before breaking it down. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, as long as a bot can do the breaking down, so we ourselves don't have breakdowns! IacobusAmor 11:40, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gene[fontem recensere]

Quomodo latine redditur verbum "gene", verbo "heredium"? Teutonius 18:35, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gene=genum (from PONS-LRL). --Rafaelgarcia 18:41, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
modo inveni haec: ген genon [i, n] ; genum [i, n] (<google) - verbo genon quoque uti possum? Et mitochondrion/ium, quomodo declinantur: genon, genoni/geni? Teutonius 18:47, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lexicon latinitatis recentis is very authoritative, so I would go with what they say, i.e. genum, which is explicitly latin 2nd declension; Genon however, is obviously a greek borrowing, and like mitochondrion is nueter second declension greek. see
Personally I would prefer to always use the latin version in um. And our page mitochondrium already does that.--Rafaelgarcia 19:24, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here more you can read: Declension of Greek Nouns--Grammar book--Rafaelgarcia 19:35, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, "genon" is a pseudo-borrowing. There isn't such a word in Greek. In (Neo-)Greek, 'gene' is γονίδιο. And in Latin, of course, genum. --Neander 20:04, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Teutonius 05:36, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German?[fontem recensere]

Estne differentia in lingua latina inter: deutsch / germanisch? Quia duae verba "theodisce & germanice" habet ad eam differentiam faciendam!? Teutonius 09:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lingua Theodisca, Populus Germanicus, Civitas Germania. IacobusAmor 11:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference I mean is not between nowerdays German and Germany (why should we use different words for them?), but betweeen germanic (dt.=germanisch, Germanen: the Germans in ancient [Roman] times) and today (Deutschland, deutsch), because both people are not the same: Germanen differed form Alemannen, Sachsen, Wenden, that (were) fused into the actual "German" mixup today! Just like Indians and "red" Indians arent the same either... My proposal would be to use theodiscus for (nowerdays) deutsch, Deutschland and germanicus only for ancient Germans (dt. germanisch, Germanen) Teutonius 12:01, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to remember that there was discussion on this (the name of the modern language, specifically) and we didn't reach consensus ... but I don't know where the discussion is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lingua Theodisca (moderna, h.e., German), Lingua Germanica (a Germanic language, e.g., English), Lingua Proto-Germanica (a Proto-Germanic language); Populus Germanicus (the Germanic people, e.g. the Alemanni, the Angli, etc.). Etc.? IacobusAmor 13:22, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree! But I think some active editors (Massimo? Alex?) prefer lingua Germanica and Germanice for "modern German language". Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Lingua Germana and Germané (avé, Avite!) should work then, but linguists often use the -ic- infix (or, in English, suffix) to denote protolanguages; e.g., German (the modern language) and Germanic (the family of languages including Dutch, English, Norwegian, etc.); Samoan (the modern language) and Samoic (the family of languages including Futunan, Samoan, Tokelauan, Tuvaluan, etc.); Atayal (a language of Formosa) and Atayalic (a family of languages including Atayal, Seediq, and Ts'ole'). An exception to this pattern is Icelandic, and you may think of others. IacobusAmor 19:53, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember that it was pointed out at the time, that there are many mutually-unintelligible German languages that are in use in Germany, Austria etc, and that the lingua Theodisca was the one German language scientifically devised to serve as a universal German language, to permit a standardized translation of the bible as well as aid communication among germans. I don't know any german by which to personally verify those claims however. --Rafaelgarcia 21:16, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Knights of the) Legion of Honor[fontem recensere]

Iovis Fulmen, editing Lavelua Tomasi Kulimoetoke II, you deleted our Categoria:Eques Legionis Honoris. Is it your opinion that Vicipaedia should not have a category for the Légion d'Honneur (whether sorted into subcategories by degrees or not)? or did you forget about this category while were you rearranging things? According to en:Legion d'honneur, "This world-renowned Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five various degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer) and Grand-Croix (Grand Cross)." Wikipedia has en:Category:Légion d'honneur recipients. Vicipaedia has lists of all sorts of things. Why not these awards? IacobusAmor 11:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't remember deleting it. If I did so, it was a mistake. Sorry for not answering earlier because I didn't feel I had anything to do with the Legion of Honor. I will see what I can do to repair the damage. --Iovis Fulmen 21:54, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoria illa nunc iam rursus est. Ego autem dubitabam, quibus supercategoriis eam attribuerem. An Categoria:Tituli, ut feci? --Iovis Fulmen 22:08, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vivi? (vide infra)[fontem recensere]

Since this discussion has revived, I've moved it downwards to make it easier to find! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modus scribendi verborum ex lingua graeca sumptorum[fontem recensere]

Quomodo recte scribuntur verba cum littera "kappa" graeca, cum in lingua latina uta sunt, velut: ophistokonta, plankton, ... haec verba in scripturis scientificis (interretialis cum littera "k" scribere solere videntur... (lingua anclica saepius scilicet et scribet cum littera "c" latina, sed verba coccus, cysta, ... cum sola "c" latina inveniuntur? Quomodo melius scribam? Teutonius 06:00, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) "Staphylococcus aureus" quoque modum "-kokkus" scribendi habere videtur (<google), ideo litteram "kappa" cum et latine "k" pronunciatur, eam cum littera "k" scribere suadeo.Teutonius 06:16, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) The "American heritage dictionary" gives: "plankton" (as key word in bold), without any trace of plancton..., but "staphylococcus", "sarco-",...Teutonius 06:27, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) Etiam pagina anglica [9] vicipaediae dat solum Plankton ac non planc-ton. Vis hoc verbum latinizare, id "planctum" scribere debeas??? Teutonius 08:16, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) Inclinationem existere videtur, ut scribunt "plankton" in Europa septentrionali, "plancton" quidem in parte meridiana (infra Francogalliam).Teutonius 08:39, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinio mea: si nomine officiali botanico vel zoologico tel quel in titulo utimur, debemus orthographiam scientificam adoptare, quia lingua Latina scientifica habet "academias" et regulas; tales auctoritates omnibus qui encyclopaediam conficiunt et legunt perutiles sunt.
Sed, si titulus noster non est nomen biologicum officiale, systema nostrum translitterationis praeferendum est: pro littera Graeca k utimur c.
Alii quid dicunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certe oportet nobis praeceptis de orthographia linguae latinae botanicae parere. Vide Botanical latin qui dat Plancton (gen. Plancti, n.). De "K" in "Plankton" praeceptum generale latinum dicit scribere "K" solam ante "a" quandoque mos illud requirit, sicut in Karthago. Hoc in momento, k apparuit in positione rara. --Rafaelgarcia 09:18, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quidnam dixit dictionarium istud de verbis -(uni)conta/konta -(eu)caryota/karyota? pagina allata non habet verba, sed solum tegumentum illius libri... Teutonius 17:18, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non est dicitonarium sed liber de lingua latina ad rem botanicam specializata. Intus loco inquisitorio ad dextram sito usus non inveni "eucaryota", sed iam "eucaryota" attestatum est (vid. nostra pag. eucaryota et confer "caryota". Praecepta latina (fuge k nisi moribus ante "a") suadunt "uniconta"--Rafaelgarcia 17:41, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad res inveniendum in libro Botanical latin, utere "loco inquisitorio" ibi ad dextram sito; to find things, use the "search box" there located at the right.--Rafaelgarcia 17:42, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kineto/cineto-?Teutonius 18:09, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Praeceptum est "fuge k nisi mores k ante a requirit", igitur cineto-"--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In conlationibus ab usore Hendrico scriptis adhuc multa verba graecolatina sunt littera "k" scripta... quid faciam, ea muteam cum paginas reficiam? Teutonius 19:58, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Habemus Translitteratio Linguae Graecae.--Ioscius (disp) 21:20, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeo hanc transliterationem non pertinere ad taxonomiam ipsam? Verba "plankta, -konta, &ct." fortasse non littera "-c-" scribere oportet cum taxa sunt, qualisnam est forma recta ea taxa scribendi? Teutonius 21:52, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sunt praecepta universalia de translitteratione quae etiam ad taxonomias pertinent.--Rafaelgarcia 23:19, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Betawiki update[fontem recensere]

  • Currently 59.28% of the MediaWiki messages and 13.70% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 11:13, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently 60.66% of the MediaWiki messages and 12.79% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 07:56, 14 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently, I seem to be the only person trying to improve the Latin user interface localization. On November 7, a not-so-proficient user contributed a few "translations" that are obviously incorrect but that are not too easy to fix for me, see the recent localisation activity. I would be very happy if someone wants to join in user interface localization there! --UV 15:08, 9 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Currently 61.31% of the MediaWiki messages and 9.13% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 11:54, 10 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently 60.28% of the MediaWiki messages and 46.10% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 15:10, 14 Decembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS Please help us complete the most wanted messages..

esse[fontem recensere]

For biographies of the deceased, should Vicipaedia use "erat" or "fuit" when describing them, or could it possibly be understood? [Scripsit]

For statements of historical fact, fuit is better. The imperfect sets the stage for a narrative; if you mentally translate the tense of erat as 'was being' (instead of 'was'), you can't go wrong. IacobusAmor 12:41, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Written at the same moment as Iacobus's reply:] In our biographies, in the first sentence, our usual and preferable form is fuit. A typical use of the imperfect (erat) is to describe a continuing state at some previously-specified period in the past. That doesn't generally suit the first sentence of a biography. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomina[fontem recensere]

Why are the names of people and places Latinized in Vicipaedia? In the English one, a serious effort is made to report the official name of the subject, especially including names with umlauts and of Cyrillic and Slavic/Polish descent. For example, Nicolaus Tesla is, in English, en:Nikola Tesla, not Nicholas Tesla or Nick Tesla. [Scripsit]

Tradition! That's what Latin authors since the Renaissance or before have been doing: usually Latinizing their forenames and sometimes (though less often these days) their surnames. ¶ Vicipaedia often includes "official" names in the first sentence, but not as the Latin lemma. Besides, the English wikipedia does not always "report" in the first sentences of articles the subjects' "official" names (if by that you mean the names that people actually used in reference to themselves): e.g., Charlemagne; Clovis I, King of the Franks; Constantine I, King of the Hellenes. And for Москва (Moskva), be sure to look under Moscow, just as you know that to find Кремль (Kreml), you need to look under Kremlin. And for the man "officially" known as Kǒng Fūzǐ, you'll want to look under Confucius, a Latinized name! IacobusAmor 12:50, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed: we should aim "always" to add the subject's usual or original name in the first sentence (if we sometimes fail or forget, those who can add the information should do so). Iacobus is right: even en:wiki sometimes fails in this aim! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg to disagree, at least to a point. On a general note, if you bolster a social practice by tradition, you'll soon find yourself on a slippery slope. It's true that Latin authors since the Renaissance have been Latinizing their forenames. I think this makes a difference. If somebody's real name is, say, Klaus, somebody's Klas, sb's Claes, still sb's Klasu, sb's Niklas, sb's Niclas, etc etc, dubbing all these variants as Nicolaus may involve some wielding of power. This is partly an identity problem, partly an aesthetic problem (and wouldn't it be easier to find people by their real names?). If a person gives h..self a Latin name, that's all right, but somehow the tradition to (re-)name, say, Kevin to Coemgenus (I hope I got it right!) and so on is on the verge of nicknaming. What if English wiki had "John Strauss" for "Johann Strauss"? Or dubbing Ville Valo as Guilelmus Valo or Bill Valo would sound equally ludicrous and high-handed, at least to me. And so on. But in fact, it's a bit unfair to blame only Vicipaedia on all this, because the tradition is indeed very strong and widely rooted. Me, I've somewhat reluctantly followed the tradition in cases that seem reasonably clear to me. But every now and then I've left a person's name as it is. Let somebody else think up fancy names in Latin. --Neander 22:42, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De: "What if English wiki had "John Strauss" for "Johann Strauss"?"—Until the rise of German musical scholarship (in the late nineteenth century) and the great migration of German musicians to America (in the twentieth), John Sebastian Bach was a well-known German composer. In France even today, owing perhaps to understandable national suspicions, Jean-Sébastien Bach (often with the requisite French hyphen) remains well-known: googling him yields more than 350,000 hits! ¶ One place I think Vicipaedia should not Latinize non-Latin names is in bibliographies, where authors' names should appear exactly as they do in the publications, with romanized letters as necessary. IacobusAmor 23:37, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am so glad you said that about bibliographies.
In general, I feel the same reluctance to convert modern people's forenames to Latin that Neander feels; I agree that Coemgenus pushes the rule to its limit; and "Britannia Spears" was absurd (but we changed that one). In general, however, it's a simple rule, and as long as we remember to mention usual names as well, it doesn't do any harm! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then should we create redirects for any search of the subject's common name in whatever language it has come from? Sapiens23 22:23, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is often done. We should have a positive rule, where to create redirects and a negative rule where better not create redirects ... and the rules should be put on page Vicipaedia:Redirectio. I personally like redirects, so I am a bit biased ... A positive rule could be: "Everything what is mentioned in the article, can/shall be a redirect, too." So, if 5 names are mentioned, this article could have 4 redirects or more. Redirects do not hurt, is my general principle, however, from the content of the article it should be understandable why the redirect exists. This will automatically limit the number of redirects, I think. However, having all these redirects should not be a must for the original author but just a target we are aiming at. Otherwise creating an article could become hard work, sometimes ;-) --Rolandus 07:09, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is one very good and obvious reason why first names should be Latinized and that is to make them declinable so that they can sit in the structure of the sentence more comfortably. Tradition is ambiguous on this, though. Jerome didn't find the need to Latinize any Old Testament names, and Bede leaves a lot of Anglo-Saxon names as they stand. Genitive case is obviously difficult to indicate with a non-declinable name, unless the preposition 'de' is used, which really is a bit naughty. Tergum violinae 12:46, 6 Decembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, though, that when talking about a person in a lengthy biography, we're bound to use surnames, if we want to create naturally flowing texts. --Neander 16:29, 14 Decembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of Names?[fontem recensere]

I would like to know whether a name has to be translated. A "typical example": I want to write an article about the oldest building in my city which is called (in German) "Adler Apotheke" which means in English "Eagle Pharmacy". Shall the name be translated into Latin or kept in German? Is there a rule? I hope somebody can give me an advice. Best regards --BBKurt 09:08, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The custom, I believe, is to give the original term in italics and then to add a Latin translation (in parentheses); exempli gratia, vide The Wall Street Journal. The italics mark the term as a foreign one. Someone will be along soon to point you to prior discussion on this point. IacobusAmor 11:53, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... e.g. Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request bot flag for Albambot[fontem recensere]

Thank you! --Albambot 13:07, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ling Template for other Wikis[fontem recensere]

Ave atque vale!

I really like the {{Ling|LANGUAGE}} template. Especially the handsome grey font.

Is there a way to make this available in other languages, especially English and German?--Goodmorningworld 20:07, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! Just copy the content of {{Ling}} (and be sure to attribute the authors, or you will be violating the GFDL). For the grey color, you also need to copy the following statements and put them into MediaWiki:Common.css on the target wiki (admin rights required):
 /* links to existing pages in grey, links to nonexisting pages in red, see [[Formula:Ling]] */
 .existinglinksgray a, .existinglinksgray a:visited {
 .existinglinksgray {
 .existinglinksgray {
Greetings, --UV 22:30, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vicipaedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Hello, I have create a new page Vicipaedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia. There you can find many syntax errors in the la.wikipedia. I hope I can help you with this page. Every morning my script scan the wikipedia and you can find a update page. There is also a international discussion page under de:Benutzer:Stefan_Kühn/Check_Wikipedia. -- sk (discussió) 18:52, 14 set 2008 (CEST)

Other Latin technology projects[fontem recensere]

Gratias tibi ago for your welcome on my user talk page. It's been a long time since GCSE, but I'm delighted to see the language in use like this.

Now I've looked around a little, it occurs to me to wonder, if there are radio stations and versions of Wikipedia in Latin, whether there's much work done in internationalisation of free software into Latin. I'm the maintainer of the window manager for GNOME and I'd be quite happy to help out anyone who wanted to get started in translating any of the project. I'm not really fluent enough to do the work myself (and besides people would say I should be fixing bugs anyway). Marnanel 00:51, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Marnanel, welcome. As a user of Gnome, myself, I would like to help out. I looked into it some time ago (I forget where), but it seemed there is so much to do....I still wonder: can one person contribute enough to make participation worthwhile?--Rafaelgarcia 02:10, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's more than no people can do. :) The project is divided into various "release sets", so you can translate, say, the basic desktop, and then the productivity programs, and so on. And within each program you can translate the strings one by one, so you can do the more visible ones first. For example, Metacity currently has about 520 strings [10], but many of them are duplicates of one another or hardly ever appear. It's a nontrivial task to get a basic desktop working, but not a vast one, and the more there's stuff done already, the more other people will be encouraged to help. I can set up a team if anyone's interested. (I don't know, but it is possibly rude of me to continue this discussion here; I didn't come here meaning to poach effort from Vicipaedia and I'm intending to hang around here and contribute. Maybe we should take it to my talk page or email or something.) Marnanel 03:58, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you can set it up, let me know I'm willing to participate. although I can't guarantee I'll put tons of hours into it.--Rafaelgarcia 11:31, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natural Reserve[fontem recensere]

I have two questions: Is there a word for alloy? Question 2 is: Is there a word for natural reserve? I can't find both words in my dictionary. Thanks for your help. --BBKurt 03:24, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning your first question: I have been wondering about that one too, but until now to no avail. Many modern languages use words that derive from Latin 'ligare' or its cognates, but I have not been able to find a Latin text where such words are used. In the article on 'steel' (chalybs) I have therefore chosen to use the verb 'misceri' ('to mix'), which in the right context may do the trick. You might use mixtura metallorum.
As for your second question: there has been a long discussion concerning natural reserves, the outcome of which I do not remember, but which you can check for yourself here. --Fabullus 08:00, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the English noun alloy, in addition to the Latin noun mixtura, how about temperies, -ei, from the verb temperare 'to temper'? IacobusAmor 11:16, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mixtura metallorum describes a mixture but mixtures can be many kinds. Temperies sounds much better and may be mot just. Georgius Agricola describes in his books De natura fossilium and De re metallica the many kinds of mixtures found in minerals and metallurgy. De re metallica can be found on the internet and it gives many terminology tables of German and latin equivalents. I don't have it in from of me, but I remember the latin phrase for alloy, given by him, is compositum metallorum. Compositum is also the latin word for chemical compound as contrasted to a mixture. --Rafaelgarcia 11:25, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the derivatives compound & composite are used in English for certain chemicals. For example, a dental composite is a "white filling." IacobusAmor 11:30, 16 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Non stipula}}[fontem recensere]

Since I was applying this template and didn't know whether the relevant users speak English, I hastily changed it to Latin and shortened it. I greatly reduced the number of links but I think maybe a good thing would be to direct users (a) to the Taberna, as the template has always done, and (b) to an associated page on which all those other links can appear. That way, they don't multiply massively in the "Nexus ad paginam" pages.

Others might want to look again at this template, consider whether the requirements for bring a page up to "stipula" standard are too strict or not strict enough, and make further edits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see now I overlooked our old discussions at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 7#Non stipulae, Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Stipulae#Quid_est_stipula.3F and Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina#Quid est pagina?! The formula didn't agree with these very closely, but I guess it needs to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now I see that I really need to make it agree with Vicipaedia:Hierarchia paginarum. These things do become difficult to find. I have made a link to the "Hierarchia" which now appears among the help links on the Pagina prima. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:21, 19 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomina chemica: carbonatum (n.) aut carbonas (m.)[fontem recensere]

In multis paginis vicipaedianis Latinis inveni nomina aniontum in -atum (-i, n.) exeuntia, sicut carbonatum, nitratum, sulphatum, etc. Investigatio in interrreti Google adhibito me tamen docuit haec nomina in lingua Latina pharmaceutica in -as (-atis, m.) exire. Confer natrii carbonatum et natrii carbonas. Ceterum nomina in -as masculini esse generis nos docet expressio saepe inventa natrii carbonas decahydricus. Multa nobis corrigenda sunt! --Fabullus 11:20, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In pagina annexa habemus ion (iontis), et anion (aniontis), nec iontum (ionti). Haec sunt verba graeca attestata. Fortasse carbonatum (carbonati) ad carbonas (carboni) melius mutatur, sed carbonatum quoque est attestatum et habet virtutem quod graecum non est. Ambae formae videntur hic, ubi Ferrum carbonatum vel Ferri carbonatum=Ferri carbonas. --Rafaelgarcia 12:33, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc -as utuntur nomina communia internationalia in nominibus Latinis pro -ate Anglico. "Ferrum carbonatum" in the source you cite isn't carbonate of iron, but carburet of iron, thus it's likely that 'carbonatum' in the synonyms is used with participial force 'carbonized iron' not a chemical description 'carbonate of iron'. —Mucius Tever 13:09, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aniontum est nominis "anion". Carbonas (-atis) non est forma Graeca sed Latina, cf. aetas (-atis). Ceterum non omnibus paginis interretialibus confidendum est: multi ibi sunt qui temere scribunt, nullis fontibus adhibitis. --Fabullus 12:52, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verum dicis quod Carbonas (-atis) est nomen latinum. Et carbonas est multum melius quam carbatum. --Rafaelgarcia 13:01, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum opinionem editorum Oxford English Dictionary, nomen substantivum Anglicum carbonate de verbo Latino "moderno" carbonātum 'a carbonated (product)' deducitur; ergo ferrum carbonatum erit 'carbonate of iron, iron carbonate'. Similiter, nomen adiectivum Anglicum carbonated de verbo Latino "moderno" carbonātus, um, vel fortasse Francico carbonaté deducitur. IacobusAmor 13:22, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliquando dormitant etiam eruditi. Hugh C. Muldoon, Lessons in Pharmaceutical Latin and Prescription Writing and Interpretation, New York 1916 [11], scribit:

In this group are included the names of the acid radicals of the oxy-acids ending in as and is. They are masculine in gender, and form the base to which the case endings are attached by changing the final s of the Nominative singular to t. Among them may be noted:
Acetas, acetate; arsenas, arsenate; benzoas, benzoate; bicarbonas, bicarbonate; bitartras, bitartrate; boras, borate; carbonas, carbonate; chloras, chlorate; chromas, chroma te; citras, citrate; dichromas, dichromate; nitras, nitrate; oleas, oleate; oxalas, oxalate; permanganas, permanganate; phosphas, phosphate; salicylas, salicylate; stearas, stearate; sulphas, sulphate; tannas, tannate; tartras, tartrate; thiosulphas, thiosulphate.
Also, bisulphis, bisulphite; hypophosphis, hypophosphite; nitris, nitrite; phosphis, phosphite, and sulphis, sulphite.

Atque eadem multi quoque alii opinant, ut investigatio Google adhibito facile demonstrabit. Commendo nos hoc aut simili fonte posthac utamur. --Fabullus 14:27, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egomet consentio ut illos fontes sequamur.--Rafaelgarcia 14:45, 20 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Di immortales! Quam mirum! --Iustinus 04:23, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks ... You are welcome![fontem recensere]

Salvete amici. Paullum habeo quod e vobis quaeram:

Si quis mihi dicit "Gratias tibi ago"... quid mihi respondendumst?


Gratus es, Equula! vale.--Rafaelgarcia 10:16, 25 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag for Ptbotgourou[fontem recensere]

  • Operator: Gdgourou
  • Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
  • Programming Language(s): Python (Pywikipedia framework)
  • Function Summary: Interwiki
  • Bot with flag: Flag list

--Gdgourou 10:29, 25 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked our grapheocrates to grant bot status to User:Ptbotgourou and to Usor:StigBot. --UV 21:47, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you for this, UV ? --Budelberger 12:07, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg). (« StigBot » is not the subject of this section.)Reply[reply]
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Renuo --Budelberger 23:31, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]
Why are you against this, Budelberger? The work these bots are doing seems OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:59, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a reason should be given.--Rafaelgarcia 11:07, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pourquoi devrais-je donner une raison (les raisons, elles sont connues) ? Donnez-moi une raison pour que je donne une raison. Symbol oppose vote.svg Renuo --Budelberger 12:07, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg). (Mais peut-être cette consultation (une parodie ?) est-elle réservée à un cercle, où l'approbation (car cooptation, et consanguinité) est de mise, automatique : alors, supprimez cette page de pure forme concoctée à l'intention des naïfs (la presse, et autres gogos), complotez entre vous dans vos tavernes réservées et cessez de parler d'« Encyclopédie interactive, ouverte à tous », etc. le baratin habituel à Wikipédia. À quand le blanchiment de mon intervention et le blocage de mon compte, pour m'être opposé à cette demande ? Hein, quand ? Comment ?! gdgourou ne vous a pas encore contactés ? ça ne sauroyt tarder. Bon, je retourne à mes interwikiz.) [-- contribution de Budelberger 12:07, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC) ]Reply[reply]
Budelbergeoi=book_resultr, j'ai répondu à ta formule {{oppose}} avec une simple question, sans aucun sous-entendu; et juste avant de l'écrire j'ai constaté que les actions récentes de Usor:Ptbotgourou et Usor:StigBot sur Vicipaedia étaient comme il faut. En effet, ils ont contribué à Vicipaedia rien que des liens interwiki (naturellement: c'est leur métier). Comment ça implique "la presse, et autres gogos" je ne comprend pas.
"Ouvert à tous", par contre, implique toi (si je peux me servir de l'informalité de la Toile!), et moi, et les autres qui contribuent.
Quel lien de consanguinité peut exister entre nous, j'ignore. Je ne connais, comme être humain, personne parmi les autres Vicipédiastes.
Quant au blanchissement de tes contributions, quant à un blocage, je n'en comprends rien du tout. Tu n'as jamais été bloqué (je l'ai vérifié il y a quelques moments). Quel blanchissement? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was a good idea to have the bot flag granted to these two bots because this hides their edits from the recentchanges list, because they seem to do good and absolutely uncontroversial work and hiding their edits from recentchanges permits users to view "real" changes more easily. Still, the contributions of these bots can be checked anytime by selecting "show bots" on recentchanges or by going directly to these bots' contributions pages. If you have reasons why you think that (unlike other bots) any of these two bots should not have the bot flag, I would be interested in hearing them! Please note that this is not a vote, so we are not counting the number of supporters and the number of opposers, but we are discussing pros and cons (= reasons) for giving or for not giving the bot flag to these two bots. --UV 23:42, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cette section ne traite pas de « these two bots » mais du seul anonyme et ridicule « Ptbotgourou ». Premier point. Deuxième point : vous vous y connaissez en vandalisme et stupidité ? Oui ? Non ? C'est une spécialité du dit « Ptbotgourou » ; allez donc voir Idrieu, Idrieus, Idrieus et Hidrieo ; je prends le pari que ce (« istud » ; avec tout le mépris que je peux mettre dans ce démonstratif connoté, grammaire latine en main) stupide robot revandalisera ces quatre pages avant que son gestionnaire, l'Honorable Anonyme Consanguin « Gdgourou », n'esquisse le début d'un commencement de tentative de compréhension du tort qu'il cause. Mais, oui, j'anticipe sur votre réponse : c'est un Consanguin, donc tout lui est dû ; permis ; pardonné. --Budelberger 17:56, 4 Novembris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]
Do not blame the messenger (in this case, Ptbotgourou), rather blame the person that introduced the false information, fr:Utilisateur:Nono64: [12]. --UV 01:09, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Budelberger that it is annoying when a bot-controller is inattentive to detail, and very annoying when a bot disrupts interwiki links (or the absence of links) that were previously correct. So far as we know, Ptbotgourou hasn't caused any such problem on la:wiki thus far. Can we agree to keep an eye on its work, and be ready to block it if it does do any damage? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:28, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mais ça, j'en ai rien à foutre ; le coupable, c'est bien ce tiers de quart de pois chiche de magaraste de robot anal-phabête de « Ptbotgourou » dont l'humanoïde derrière lui, le mangaraste « Gdgourou », dit avec sa morgue coutumière qu'il fonctionne en « Automatic » ! Si son pote consanguin « UV », vous-même, ne s'était précipité sur fr pour corriger les liens – c'est beau, la solidarité entre placés ! –, cet imbécile de robot aurait récidivé. Regardez donc comment ça fonctionne, votre système endogamique : la de.Wikipedia est sûrement la Wikipedia dont tout Consanguin rêve : entre Consanguins, et uniquement entre eux ; louque à Idrieus, et constatez que le vandale s'autoapprouve, quand le Génie errant – à savoir Bibi – est censuré par un tiers mangaraste – plusieurs heures après intervention. Une innovation bienvenue se prépare, ici ; mais il existe une différence de culture, pour ne pas dire d'intelligence, entre les Wikipedia. Par exemple, j'ai fait volontairement ceci ; c'est en effet la seule correspondance biunivoque entre deux Wikipedias ; vous allez voir qu'un robot stupide et mangaraste va saboter l'affaire ! --Budelberger 13:14, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]
On sort un peu du domaine de la la.Wikipedia, mais pas tant que ça ; allez donc voir là-bas ce dont est capable votre Consanguin « Gdgourou ». --Budelberger 13:05, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg). (En faisant ça, je suis certain de lui attirer un nombre considérable de suffrages favorables de Consanguins séduits par le bonhomme.)Reply[reply]
Ses copains aussi donnent dans le vandalisme : à l'autre bout du monde, là où on te vous les passerait à la machete sans barguigner, les vandales. (C'est qu'on ne tergiverse pas, au pays de Chaka Zulu et Mangosuthu Buthelezi !) Ah ! il est beau, le monde au mangaraste « Gdgourou » ! --Budelberger 14:09, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]

Désolé, je n'avais pas mis la taberna en liste de suivi après avoir demandé le statut de bot. Je découvre cette page suite à cela... Question, pour m'avoir traité de ""consanguin", ce cher Budelberger, qui semble me chercher des noises sur tous les wiki, a-t-il été bloqué ? De toute façon je laisse les admins de ce wiki faire comme ils le souhaitent. Je trouve malheureux son comportement... depuis qu'il est banni de fr et bloqué sur d'autres wikis pour troll sulutil:Budelberger et que son mail à la liste wikimedia a été traduit par mes soins, il semble vouloir s'en prendre à moi de manière un peu trop agressive... ou peut-être être bloquer sur tout les wikis ? Pour info, je suis admin sur fr depuis novembre 2006 et arbitre depuis septembre 2008. --Gdgourou 10:35, 10 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
PS : should i translate this message for UV ?Reply[reply]

Budelberger seems to consider normal to insult people. I don't really know how you (Gdgourou, UV) manage to take this amount of abuse without taking action. Darkoneko 10:59, 10 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scriptores and auctores[fontem recensere]

In general all authors whose biographies are on Vicipaedia now have at least one category for their country of origin/work (see Categoria:Scriptores secundum civitates digesti) and at least one category for the language they used (see Categoria:Auctores secundum linguas digesti. If anyone finds writers who have escaped my net, please add categories to them as appropriate. When adding new pages about authors, please think to add both types of category.

In the same way, all pages about books/literary texts should now have a category both for the country they originate in (see Categoria:Scripta secundum civitates digesta) and for the language they are written in (see Categoria:Litterae secundum linguas digestae). It's interesting to see that although we are naturally strongest on Latin literature and authors, we also have articles on literature and authors in 44 other languages.

My heartfelt thanks to UV (and UVBot) for making this possible! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article counter not functioning[fontem recensere]

The counter at the top of our main page, which counts the number of articles, is not working, stuck at the number 22 804 since yesterday. Massimo was the first to notice this. --Rafaelgarcia 21:02, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same number is given on Specialis:Census. I suppose that, for performance reasons, the counter is not updated "live" but only once a day or so. Let us watch this number for the next few days to find out whether this is the case. --UV 22:28, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've watched it before when we were nearing a 1000 mark and in the past, it changed almost instantly after a new page is added. It is at least a change in behavior.--Rafaelgarcia 23:05, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may not be related, but the Scint tu ...? formula doesn't update either on the pagina prima--Xaverius 14:19, 28 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Towards New proposal policy[fontem recensere]

Many community members strongly disagree with the current policy (one of them, the ancient language criterion). We are proposing a modification of languages criteria to star a wikimedia project, with a community draft. feel free to contribute with your opinion:

thak you, very much. — Crazymadlover

en:Bucentaur: Translation help sought[fontem recensere]

Hi, it would be great if someone could help provide English translations of the following Latin phrases which appear in the article "en:Bucentaur":

  • Navilium Duecentorum Hominum – name of a ship.
Of two hundred naval men--Rafaelgarcia 11:06, 30 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Desponsamus te, mare, in signum veri perpetuique domini ("We wed thee, sea ...") – said during a ceremony.
We betroth thee, sea, in the sign of the true and everlasting lord.--Rafaelgarcia 11:06, 30 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks! — Ave, JackLee disputatio 07:33, 30 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late response. Thanks! — Ave, JackLee disputatio 15:57, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ave[fontem recensere]

Could any of you please have a look at pyramides Aegyptiae? Is it common on Vicipaedia for articles to have only one author? It seems like the whole wiki-idea stops working like this... - Golradir 20:13, 2 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on developing the article so far. Since you have clearly been working on it up to now, there was maybe no immediate reason for anyone else to intervene (except for the additions that Massimo made); and the wiki-idea sometimes takes longer than ten days to get under way! But if you want specific help, you can always say so, here or in the article's talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 2 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've helped the word-order a bit. IacobusAmor 23:25, 2 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation[fontem recensere]

Can anyone translate this sentences to English, please? We need them translated so that we can make Portugal a featured article in the Portuguese wikipedia:

  • "Rechiarius ad locum qui Portucale appellatur, profugus regi Theudorico captivus adducitur: quo in custodiam redacto, caeteris qui de priore certamine superfuerant, tradentibus se Suevis, aliquantis nihilominus interfectis, regnum destructum et finitum est Suevorum."
Rechiarius, having fled to the place called Portugal, upon capture said taken to the king Theodoric [II]: with he that is taken into custody, with the others who survived the prior contest battle, the Suevi who gave themselves up, with some dead as well, the kingdom of the Suervi is destroyed. (I'm not familiar with the history does that sound right?--Rafaelgarcia 18:29, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC) [The emendations in this text were made by Xaverius, I think! -- Andrew]Reply[reply]
How about this? "Rechiarius, who had fled to the place called Portucale, was captured and brought before king Theudoric. He was held in custody; the other Suevi who had survived the earlier contest gave themselves up, and some of them were killed anyway; thus the kingdom of the Suevi was destroyed and brought to an end." In this case, Rafael, I don't think the ablatives mean "with": I think they are ablative absolutes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but it's possible in English (though not often stylish) to conceive ablative absolutes with with, as in a version that's perhaps literal enough to help non-Latinists: "Rechiarius, having fled to the place that's called Portucal, is taken as a captive to King Theudoric: with him having been brought into custody, with the other Suevi who'd survived from the previous battle having surrendered, with many nevertheless having been executed, the kingdom of the Suevi was destroyed and extinguished." ¶ For supersum and the idea of 'survive', the only example in Cassell's is with the genitive or dative (pugnae), not with a phrase headed by de; that's why I added 'from' into the translation. ¶ That's a looooong hyperbaton there with caeteris qui de priore certamine superfuerant, tradentibus se Suevis! IacobusAmor 19:59, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is a long one, isn't it!
As to the ablative absolute, I think (if you don't mind me saying so) that the awkwardness of the result rather exemplifies that it often isn't helpful or accurate to try to translate it using "with" ... though I agree it may work sometimes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • and "Totius galleciae, seu Portugalensi Provintiae summun suscipiat Praesulatum."

Thanks. Joaopais 17:33, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that he undertake the superintendant's office of the whole of Gallicia, or the top of the Portugalese province, (=portugalensis provinciae summum--misspelling?).--Rafaelgarcia 18:29, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another try: "that he undertake the supreme government [summum praesulatum] of the whole province of Galicia or Portugal". Yes, there are spelling problems. It probably ought to be "Portugalensis", it certainly ought to be "summum", and the classical spelling would be "provinciae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This Portugalensi works as spelled if it can be conceived as dative: "That he take up the highest governance of all Galicia, or for the Province of Portugal." But that may not be likely! ¶ Cassell's seems not to have a noun praesulatus, so I take your word on its sense. IacobusAmor 20:10, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
praesulatus. References in Google books seem to differ on whether it's 'Portugalensis' or 'Portugalensi' (or 'Galleciae' or 'Gallaeciae', and at least one has 'provinciae') but it does look like it should be 'summum' in the original and 'summun' is a variant unique to —Mucius Tever 20:39, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, the dative might just work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, the dative is the regular idiom in a construction conveying a similar idea, as I've just found while browsing in B.G., 8.52: T. Labienum Galliae togatae praefecit 'He put Titus Labienus in charge of Italian Gaul'. IacobusAmor 23:56, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'm late, but I had this:
Ola João. A traduçao dos textos é ista (perdoa meu português)
  • Requiário fugitivo ao lugar que chaman Portucale [Porto], foi levado preso ao rei Theodorico [II]: foi posto em custodia, com o resto dos suevos os cuais sobreviveram à anterior batalha, os cuais renderon-se, mais outros muitos foram morridos, o reino dos Suevos foi destruido e terminado
--Xaverius 18:42, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My version would be: "Requiário fugitivo ao lugar que chaman Portucale, foi levado preso ao rei Theodorico. Ele foi posto em custodia, enquanto o resto dos suevos os cuais sobreviveram à anterior batalha renderam-se (e alguns deles ficaram matados); nesta maneira o reino dos Suevos foi destruido e terminado." But that's the first time I've tried translating from Latin into Portuguese, and I expect my Portuguese is a lot shakier than yours, Xaveri! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well folks, thank you very much for all your help. I have now a very good idea of what the sentences mean. And I'm very impressed with your level of Portuguese, Xaverius and Andrew. That was great! Joaopais 15:27, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sem problemas Joao, obrigado! Cual é a pagina da wiki portuguesa que terá o texto?--Xaverius 21:52, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ablative absolutes translated with prepositions; e.g., with[fontem recensere]

2 nummi: Father Foster denounces and even mock "with" when translating ablative absolutes, and I tend to agree. Cf matre mortua, ad novam urbem profectus. If you say "with his dead mother, he set off for a new city", you are clearly missing the point of the sentence. Not implying that anyone would ever translate that sentence as such, it just illustrates the reason not to do it. I was made a convert after this example. Looking back, I've never seen an instance where "with" improves a translation, always it clunks it up.
On a side note, I miss you all and this project dearly. I've had the busiest semester of my life so far, and I'm struggling to find the time to contribute with any usefulness or regularity... we will see... =/ --Ioscius (disp) 23:44, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bradley's Arnold gives several ways of translating ablative absolutes: "sometimes by an active participle in apposition to some word in the sentence; sometimes by such phrases as 'on,' 'after,' 'in consequence of' 'in spite of,' 'without,' 'instead of,' followed by a verbal substantive in ing; sometimes by a subordinate clause introduced by 'after,' 'when,' 'while,' 'because,' 'although,' 'if,' etc; and sometimes by a co-ordinate clause" (420). In #424, it suggests translating te duce as 'with you for leader' or 'under your leadership'. I don't know that I'd call it a "mistranslation" of te duce, Caesar (the last line of Horace's ode 1.2) if we rendered it as 'with you as our leader, Caesar'. ¶ Matre mortua obviously means '(with) his mother having died', not 'with his dead mother'! If with clunks it up, it's because that with is clunky as a feature of the English idiom, not necessarily because it's an incorrect translation; but maybe those are the same thing. ¶ Your absence has been observed & regretted! IacobusAmor 00:51, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being translatorish about it, yes, I agree with Iacobus's antepenultimate thought: if the translation is clunky (and the original is not clunky) then it's an incorrect translation.
I also agree with the last two thoughts: I too have observed, and regretted, Ioscius's absence ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag[fontem recensere]

Hi,I blocked and need Flag on you wiki,please help meLadsgroup 17:42, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for creating a userpage for your bot. I unblocked your bot. --UV 22:48, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mirabile/Horribile dictu, Maureen Dowd[fontem recensere]

Mirabile/Horribile dictu, Maureen Dowd, actorum diurnorum scriptrix Americana, hodie suam columnam diurnalem in New York Times Latine scribit, columnam quae permulta insolitissima verba excogitat, e.g. supralupocidit 'she shoots wolves from the air'. Exordium: "Manes Julii Caesaris paucis diebus aderant—“O, most bloody sight!”—cum Ioannes McCainus, mavericus et veteranus captivusque Belli Francoindosinini, et Sara Palina, barracuda borealis, qui sneerare amant Baracum Obamam causa oratorii, pillorant ut demagogi veri, Africanum-Americanum senatorem Terrae Lincolni, ad Republicanas rallias." Vide: IacobusAmor 16:41, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mea sententia, quod ea per Gary D. Farney scripsit mertuit Latinitatem -4; sed gratias tibi, multum mihi interest. Mirabile est mihi quod tantum gentes hominesque se excitant super suffragium appropinquans; mea sententia, duo candidati paene in toto sunt aequales. Indistinguibiles tantum.--Rafaelgarcia 17:23, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hic commentarius has Linguae Latinae Popularis attestationes nobis dat:
Leeus Atwater 'Lee Atwater'
Wilhelmus Ayrus 'William Ayres'
barracuda borealis 'northern barracuda'
Bellum Francoindosininum
birrabaronessa 'baroness of beer'
bossus maximus 'big boss'
brazeniter 'brazenly'
Georgius Busius 'George Bush'
cocaini minimi 'a little blow, a small amount of cocaine'
Stephanus Colbertus
Depressio Magna 'Great Depression'
disastrum, -i 'disaster'
distracto, -are, -avi, atum 'distract'
Dukakis, -is 'Michael Dukakis'
ferox puella 'mean girl (slang term denoting a specific social "type")'
Tina Feia 'Tina Fey'
goofballus, -i 'goofball'
Francus Keatinx 'Frank Keating'
Kissinger, -gri 'Henricus Kissinger'
mascus, -i 'mask'
mavericus, -i 'maverick'
Ioannes McCainus
minimissimus, -a, -um 'really really small'
Baracus Husseinus Obama
nervosus esse 'to be nervous, worried'
Ohio, -onis 'Ohium'
Sara Palina
pilloro, -are, -avi, -atum 'to pillory'
rabble-rouser, -is 'rabble-rouser'
rallia, -ae '(political) rally'
scurrilosus, -a, um 'scurrilous'
Wilhelmus Shakespearus
sneero, -are, -avi, -atum 'to sneer'
sniffero, -ere, -exi, -ectum [?] 'to sniff'
supralupocido, -ere, -i [?], -itum 'kill wolves from above'
Terra Lincolni 'Land of Lincoln' (h.e. Illinoesia)
Vilmingtonus, -i 'Wilmington (oppidum in Ohione)'
Aiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!! IacobusAmor 17:52, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mea sententia, Gary D. Farney hac in commentatione linguam latinam vere deridet et insultat. Cupaltus est quod melius scire debet.
Fortasse non constituit derissionem intentionalem, sed omnes res ab eo hic scriptas debemus interpretare sicut ut melius iocum qui soli lingua anglica loquentes possunt intellegere.
Nullae suae locutiones sunt attestationes per se credibiles quod scriptor qui ea vocabula creat linguae latinae minus scit quam ullus nostri. Vide exempli gratia tales eius gemmas sicut "Obama non queretur high-tech lynching. Sed secreto-serventes agentes nervosissmi sunt." ubi "secreto-servantes agentes" signifaret "secret service agents" et "Tu betchus" = "you bet" et "colossale goofballo" = collosal goofball" et "Talk about lipsticka in porcam!" =?"lipstick on a pig" (labramentum in porca).
Possumus igitur latinizationes magis credibiles quam suas creare vel simpliciter invenire in lexicis; sicut disastrum-->calamitas; sneerare-->subsannare; mascus--> persona; etc..
--Rafaelgarcia 21:51, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keys...[fontem recensere]

... but not claves, the Florida ones. How would they be in Latin? Cannot find them in the usual places. I just can make guesses... insullula? certainly not Caius...--Xaverius 21:04, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it means a small, low island made up mostly of coral or sand, which is more specific than merely small island. In the various languages "cayo, cay, key, etc." is a borrowing from the Taino indian language, so I don't see immediately why "caius" would be absurd. Although I understand your hesitation and it would be better to find a source.--Rafaelgarcia 21:47, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keys are islets, and Cassell's says islets are parvae insulae. IacobusAmor 22:00, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would we have then Parvae insulae Floridae / Caii Floridae? Maybe even Torta lumiarum Caiorum?--Xaverius 22:09, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes dictionaries have to give explanations rather than exact equivalents, if their makers think no such equivalents exist. Parva insula is one of those explanations, so I think it doesn't make a very convincing place-name for us.
The reason why the Taino word was borrowed at all is, I take it, that the borrowers (Spanish speakers originally) felt these little islands were not just any little islands: they had some common characteristics which not all little islands share (cf. atoll, which will have been borrowed for a similar reason).
I've checked Friederici's Amerikanistisches Wörterbuch, a history of words derived from American languages, but unfortunately he couldn't cite any Latin sources for this word. Given all the European equivalents (cayo, caya, caie, caic, caiz, key) and the Taino original which was cited by a Spanish author as "cayo", yes, I think we maybe should allow ourselves to borrow the word into Latin as "caius". Caii Floridenses? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we certain there is no Latin or Latinized name for these islands? Perhaps we should adopt Caii Floridenses as a provisional name only, with a note inviting readers to provide an actually attested name (with source of course). --Fabullus 10:35, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the termination -o is significant in the original tongue (rather than a Spanish -o, conceived as a quasi-back-formation from Latin -us, -um), the better form could be caio, -onis. Shouldn't we borrow from the Taino language, rather than from the Spanish? IacobusAmor 12:21, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The islands' discoverer Ioannes Pontius Legionensis called them "los Martires", which is Latinized as Martyres, as this map shows (and I am sure a more extensive search will uncover more examples). --Fabullus 14:35, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The college at Cambridge was founded by a man named Keys who Latinised his name to Caius, if I remember correctly. Marnanel 15:08, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. See Ioannes Caius. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:37, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that Keys or Kees was then pronounced something like [keis] or [keiz] (or in journalists' orthography, "kayz"), and so the Latin would have been [kei@s] (or "kayus"), which evolved with the rest of the English pronunciation of Latin to reach its present sound; but this cayo would have been [kaio] (approximately rhyming with Ohio), and it has nothing etymological to do with Keys, so the seeming analogy here is false. IacobusAmor 15:49, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then it seems a choice between the Caiones Floridenses and the Martyres (Florida)/Martyres Floridenses/Martyres (insulae Floridenses) until a source turns up. I think that the original name of Martyres could work--Xaverius 16:24, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Martyres is a proper name, but the definition still requires a common noun: "The Florida Keys are a chain of small coral islands. . . ." = "Martyres (Anglice: Florida Keys) sunt series [parvarum insularum ~ COMMON NOUN HERE, GENITIVE PLURAL]. . . ." IacobusAmor 17:01, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original taino word is "Cay", see . Thus there is no evidence to generalize to caio (-onis); caius (-ii) is closer to the original. Or you could say Cay (-yis)---are there words in latin that end in y like that?--Rafaelgarcia 17:14, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction the taino word "Cay" means "island" and "Cayo" means "cay island". Its on the same page a little further down. So perhaps the o does belong there like Iacobus suggested.See --Rafaelgarcia 17:17, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's unclear what the source of that dictionary is, but if it's accurate, three words may be relevant: cay 'island', cayo 'a pass between islands, cay island, a pass or a key', and caicu 'reef or little island land bridge.' If so, then we may reinterpret these (regularizing the spellings & simplifying the glosses) as: cai 'island' + cai-ō 'key' + cai-cū 'reef'. If the final o and cu are lexical items (not grammatical suffixes), they're likely to have nonshort vowels. In turn, the least wrenching Latinization for them might then be caiō, -ōnis 'key' and caicū, -ūs 'reef'. IacobusAmor 18:47, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what you suggest is the best, Iacobe. The site I think is very credible as it is put up by Taino indian tribe association of Puerto Rico. See --Rafaelgarcia 18:55, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credibility is a lot to ask, since the Taino language ceased to be spoken centuries ago and was never recorded systematically. The online dictionary on that site is interesting, but can't claim any authority concerning what the Taino spoke when European explorers borrowed these words ... unless, indeed, that online dictionary is based on scholarly work on the early Taino language, which was distilled in Douglas Taylor, Languages of the West Indies (Baltimore, 1977). I think it's very possible it is based on that book, albeit unacknowledged ... But, anyway, I would certainly support Iacobus's proposed Latinizations. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is another online dictionary here: the information is similar but the author confirms Iacobus's suggestion that the final -cu in caicu is a lexical item. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't we have this rule about not inventing words and names if there is an attested alternative? --Fabullus 19:55, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the point is here this is no attested alternative for key as distinguished from islet. Iacobus' suggestion amounts to only adding latin endings to the original taino word, so strictly it is not coining anyway, just assigning a declension.--Rafaelgarcia 20:00, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As we did with Atolu, -ūs, n. Still, it's hard to believe that some Spanish priest or captain somewhere didn't write a Latin passage mentioning the keys, so an attestation may well turn up. Perhaps an account of a shipwreck in the keys would offer a term. IacobusAmor 21:58, 16 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ponce's discovery of the Florida Keys is described by Herrera y Tordesillas in his Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas i tierra firme del mar oceano. (1601-1615), in Spanish. Here we are told that Ponce discovered the islands and called them "Los Martires". According to this site Herrera's work was translated into Latin in 1624. I have not been able to see this work, but I would be surprised if "Los Martires" would be rendered in any other way than "Martyres" (as on the map I already submitted as evidence).
Yes no one denys that Martyres is a well-attested, proper name for the florida keys and agree that it should be used, but we still need a general term for cay, cayo works fine for this, and also allows us to translate the english name..--Rafaelgarcia 06:58, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think two things are being confused in the discussion above: (1) The Latin name of these islands, which - I think - should be Martyres (insulae) (unless other attested alternatives turn up), and (2) the definition/description thereof, for which - if I understand you correctly - you want to introduce an unknown and unattested word, that will serve no other purpose than to define precisely these islands (for how many 'Keys'/'Cayos' are there beside the Florida ones?) Why not simply translate the definition you gave above ("...small, low island[s] made up mostly of coral or sand...")? In the article you may of course want to include the English/Spanish/Native Indian words for these islands, but there is no need to latinize these, or to assign a declension (unless, again, an attested latinization turns up). --Fabullus 07:50, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, how are you proposing to translate the english page cay ? [Scripsit Rafael]
Etiam rogavit Fabullus: "how many 'Keys'/'Cayos' are there beside the Florida ones?" Ait cay: "Cays occur in tropical environments throughout the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans (including in the Caribbean and on the Great Barrier Reef and Belize Barrier Reef)." IacobusAmor 11:33, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moscovia/Moscua[fontem recensere]

At present we call the former grand duchy Moscovia and the city Moscua. Is this distinction based on earlier sources? Can anyone remember? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This distinction is made by, among others, Iohannes Iacobus Hofmannus, Lexicon Universale (1698), lemma ‘Moscovia’. --Fabullus 14:15, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago, Fabulle! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translitteratio Coreana[fontem recensere]

"Dragons," usor ignotus, orthographiam Coreanam mutavit; exemplorum gratia, Myung ad Myeong et Kim Jong ad Gim Jeong et Ki-moon ad Gi-mun. Quae translitteratio est potior? IacobusAmor 15:39, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vivi?[fontem recensere]

Discussion moved here from above

Do/Should we have a general category for living people, as Wikipedia does? IacobusAmor 11:48, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we have one as yet. Do we in fact want a warning template, "this is a living person ..."? The template could automatically add the category.
UV, could your bot (if it has time!) add a template to all pages that have a Categoria:Nati and not a Categoria:Mortui? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such a category would give editors an easy way to check articles for unwarranted POV, graceless characterizations, and even libelous assertions. Someday, long before the time when 7,000,000,000 people are in such a category, it should be broken down into manageable subcategories. IacobusAmor 12:49, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this should be possible. Unless objection is raised here, I will try to do that in the next few days. If I forget, please remind me. --UV 00:03, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On afterthought: Should we really use a template for all living persons or would a category suffice (plus a warning template to be used on pages susceptible to vandalism)? What title should we choose for the template/the category – "Vivi" (problem: does not make clear that it deals with humans only), "Homines viventes"? --UV 23:01, 4 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fewer warning templates the better, I agree. A related question: should this be a hidden category? I don't see why the usual reader would want to search for all our living people, unless to vandalise the pages; we, on the other hand, could use the category to check for vandalism and inappropriate comments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before deciding on whether to create (and whether to populate automatically) a category for living people, I analyzed which pages would end up in such a list. The results are quite surprising, see Vicipaedia:Dump/Birth and death categories. We should do some cleanup work before populating such a category automatically … Greetings, --UV 22:34, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a very useful and educational exercise! To begin to deal with the first half of your list (which evidently consists of dead people, and therefore is not urgent as far as Iacobus's question is concerned) could your bot, by any chance, add a hidden category Categoria:Categoria nativitatis desiderata to all of them? Thus the "list" will become a category, and will update itself whenever someone changes this category to, e.g., Categoria:Nati saeculo 18 or Categoria:Nati anno ignoto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea, I converted the first list into a category. --UV 08:25, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... which is Categoria:Categoria nativitatis desiderata. UV and I have now written some suggested instructions there with the idea of making it crystal clear what to do! Could others have a look at the logic and the Latinitas please? Does it all make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added another analysis: I checked how many articles lack both a birth category and a death category. The results are not too encouraging, see Vicipaedia:Dump/Birth and death categories. Converting this list to a category is probably not a very good idea, because articles about persons are currently intermingled in Categoria:Homines with articles about professions, articles about groups of persons and other stuff. Perhaps we should clean this up by removing Categoria:Munera (en:Category:Occupations) from Categoria:Homines and instead creating a new category Homines secundum munus [digesti] (en:Category:People by occupation)? --UV 21:03, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as you burrow down through sub-categories, you are naturally taken into non-biographical areas. It's the problem of classifying life, the universe and everything, and I don't think any re-categorization will really solve it: those linkings are helpful to other people, although not helpful to us in this particular task!
There will be no perfect way to find all incompletely-categorized articles via the category structure. If there were, there would be redundancy in the structure. (... Well, there is, of course. But there would be more of it than there actually is.)
I agree, finally, that the new list, as it stands, contains too much irrelevancy. So, instead of that, what about making a list of pages that have the bio-stipula and no birth or death date? No method will be perfect, but at least a list produced by that method should contain practically no pages that are not biographies. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:15, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea, but as a comparison between the two lists shows, this method not only causes irrelevant entries to disappear, but also results in the loss of many relevant entries. What shall we do? Convert the list as it stands now (~700 entries) into a category (Categoria:Categoria nativitatis et mortis desiderata?) Manually compile a correct and complete list (the comparison between the two lists is quite helpful) that can then be fed to UVbot to have it converted into a category? --UV 21:38, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to admit, I just haven't time right now to work on the manual compilation. For that reason, my suggestion is to put the list of relevant bio-stipula pages into a category. I would call it Categoria:Categoriae nativitatis et obitus desideratae because we don't want a "category of death", we want a category for the moment of passing from life to death, and obitus (4th decl.) is the word that Cicero chose for this event: but others may disagree with my quibble! As for the large remainder, I can only suggest retaining them as a list, on which we can work when possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheeses and others[fontem recensere]

I am working on cheese (not just for Vicipaedia but for a book I have to write). So I ought to explain what I've been doing with soft redirects. These are one of Rolandus's favourite tricks, which I have been experimenting with. Others may think this useful, or they may not! Since, in this area, there are often more official names than real kinds of cheese -- and on En:wiki and a few others there are sometimes rather repetitive entries for all the official names -- I have tried the method of writing an entry for what (I think) is a real type of cheese, and then, if there are several official names, making soft redirects from them. Soft redirects can have categories (so the names are listed under the right country) and their own interwiki links (so Vicipaedia has more incoming links).

I have made three formulas for the official names. Each one has its own category

  1. {{Libellus mercatorius}}, for trade marks, Categoria:Libellus Mercatorius
  2. {{Appellatio geographica}}, for certified geographical and traditional names (the level of Vin de pays etc.), Categoria:Appellatio Geographica
  3. {{Appellatio}}, for protected designations (the level of Appellation contrôlée etc.), Categoria:Appellatio Originis Protecta

I am not sure if it's really worthwhile for us to separate the last two; if not, formula 2 could be redirected into formula 3, and no harm done.

If this all makes sense, we might eventually make pages for wines, and other things, in the same way. Meanwhile, if you want to see how a really good cheese is born, glance at the photographs at Mimolette. One of my favourites. Or Caseus marcidus ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapel[fontem recensere]

Does anybody know the correct latin word for chapel? My dictionary only tells me Sacra aedes or templum. But these vocabulary can also be used for church. As there is a significant difference between a chapel and a church there should be different words for both substantives. Maybe somebody can help. --~~BBKurt 06:02, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morgan gives:
.chrc chapel / aedicula; sacellum; capella+ [Latham; s.18] (Helf.)  ]]  sacellum, oratorium (LRL)  ]]  sacellum,  aedicula; (private) sacrarium (Lev.)
.chrc chaplain / sacellanus, capellanus
Of these capella is the original word for chapel, and is the one most often used in medieval times, according to words, which says:
capella, capellae  N (1st) F   [FEXDE]    Medieval  lesser
chapel; choir; [a capella => unaccompanied (song); ~ magister => choirmaster];
she-goat; meteor type; star in constellation Auriga (rising in rainy season);
dirty fellow, old goat; man with a goat-like beard; body odor;
For sacellum, Words gives "shrine", not "chapel". Words says aedicula means "small room" and has "chapel" as a remote secondary meaning. Bizsarely, LRL recommends oratorium which means "prayer room", which works for a chapel located in a convent perhaps but may not work for a stand alone building.
So the answer is that there is no consensus on the "correct" latin word, but the medieval word appears to be "capella" (from which we get chapel) and you can also use "oratorium" (short for conclave oratorium =prayer room, which the vatican's Egger apparently recommends -though I don't have the LRL to verify)
Where is this single p, though? We had this conversation a few years ago, and Iustinus and Iacobus proved pretty conclusively it should be "cappella".--Ioscius (disp) 13:37, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to get a link to the discussion. Before I saw thish thread, I already changed "cappella" to "capella" in the text. If I'm wrong, please, change it back but don't simply cancel my edits. There was pretty much to be corrected. --Neander 17:42, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes you're right! Words says Cappella means only chapel whereas Capella means chapel and small goat, probably a misspelling or variant. I missed the earlier discussion you refer to.--Rafaelgarcia 15:46, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion is found here Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata_anni_2007#cap(p)ella --Rafaelgarcia 17:57, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Rafael. Martinus Neander 22:48, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note also the following from the Collegiate Christian dictionary:"The phrase a cappella is Italian in origin, as are most musical terms. Literally it translates to "in the style of the chapel," which does not mean "unaccompanied." It refers to choral music without separate instrumental accompaniment. Instruments may be used to double the vocal parts, eg using an electric bass to strengthen the vocal bass line, and the piece is still a cappella."
--Rafaelgarcia 08:30, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we look at actual texts (at hand e.g. in Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus by J.F.Niermeyer, 1997 s.v. capella), we can see that both the etymologising form cappella (< cappa) and the phonetic form capella were in use ( spelling-pronunciation vs pronunciation-spelling ). So, Andrew (23 Aprilis 2007) seems to be right when he speaks of spelling-game. Because my mind avoids recognising a strong norm where there is none, I'd rather accept both variants. Were cappella set as the norm, that would be because it represents the Platonic ἔτυμος λόγος. But why would the etymological criterion rule out the sociophonetic fact that geminate consonants were phonotactically problematic before stressed syllables and tended to degeminate (Law of mamilla): mamma => mamilla; canna => canalis; currus => curulis, offa => ofella; etc., and in Vulgar Latin this process was extended even to stops (opportunus > oportunus; successus > Sucessus [name]). While I have no problem with accepting both cappella and capella, somebody else might have? --Neander 23:48, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree both forms are ok, just like I would think both quatuor and quattuor are ok. However, if I were required to chose between the two forms when writing for an encyclopedia article I would chose Cappella for the etymological reasons you refer to. In an article on the subject of chapels I would begin it "Cappella seu capella est ..." or something similar citing both forms.--Rafaelgarcia 00:11, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

De: "Words says aedicula means "small room" and has "chapel" as a remote secondary meaning." Cassell's says Livy used aedicula to mean 'a small temple', and Cicero used it to mean 'a niche' or 'shrine' for the image of a god. The first meaning is quite close to several senses in English: 'a subordinate or private place of worship: as (a) a place of worship serving a residence or institution; (b) a small house of worship usu. associated with a main church; (c) a room or recess in a church for meditation and prayer or small religious services'; also 'a place of worship used by a Christian group other than an established church' (MWCD10, but I've changed the punctuation to improve the typography). So aedicula doesn't look so bad. Surely though, forms of cappella must be well-attested from the Renaissance and perhaps before. IacobusAmor 02:09, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation needed[fontem recensere]

I need a category name for "Diaries" (e.g. Samuel Pepys's). We have used "Diaria" for newspapers; Caesar used "Commentarii" for books which were anything but diaries; what should we use? I suppose the Greek "Ephemerides" is a possibility? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Libellus diarius"="small daily book" would be my choice (originally attributed to CL (Cottidie Latine loquamur?) by Morgan). --Rafaelgarcia 15:09, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ephemeris personalis"="personal journal", or "Ephemeris diaria" = "daily journal", would work too, but as the english phrasings suggest, it would be more serious undertaking than a mere diary.--Rafaelgarcia 15:13, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for those suggestions. Well, the works I'm thinking of are quite hefty (have you seen the ten volumes of Pepys?). "Libellus" seems a bit modest. And they are varyingly personal -- Pepys has quite a lot about politics, etc., and so does the Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris.
You seem to agree with me that "Ephemerides" is also a possible choice. For the category, there is maybe no need to qualify it with an adjective. In fact "Ephemerides diariae" would be a sort of tautology, since, taken literally, both words mean the same thing. So I am thinking of going for Categoria:Ephemerides. But I haven't created it yet, so do comment further! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When speaking of his histoires inédites (Shackleton Bailey), Cicero (Att. II 6 = 26 ShBailey), uses the Greek word ἀνέκδοτα ('inedita'), maybe because he couldn't find a Latin word off the cuff. What about Anecdota Pepysiana or something. Just a quick thought. --Neander 17:28, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I learned the English word ephemeris when I was seven or eight because a great-aunt dabbled in astrology. It means, of course, 'a tabular statement of the assigned places of one or more celestial bodies at regular intervals'. I don't see why it wouldn't be OK for 'diary', but you'd want to create a disambiguation page to separate the astro(log/nom)ical sense from the personal-expression sense. Another idea to think about might be commonplace book, which is what I called my diaries in my younger days, because I copied into them lists, poems, tables, and whatnot. Surely some English-speaker in the eighteenth century attested for posterity some Latin term for commonplace book. IacobusAmor 18:10, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC) IacobusAmor 18:10, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps "ephemerides personales" (personal journals) or "anecdota personalia" would be better for the categories. I worry plain "ephemerides" should include professional journals, astronomical journals, wall street journal, as well as our latin "Ephemeris".
Would Cicero have been happy with using personalis for certain of our modern senses of personal? IacobusAmor 18:16, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, in category names we are currently using "Diaria" to mean Newspapers. Clearly, anyone who doesn't know what a category name is supposed to mean can click on it to see a list of its contents. Therefore, I don't think the confusion to which Neander Iacobus refers will be a problem in practice (or, if it is, our current Categoria:Diaria and many other current category names will have caused equal confusion).
"Anecdota" is one I hadn't thought of ... Shackleton Bailey's translation histoires inédites suggests that he (SB I mean) didn't think the word's obvious sense was diary, otherwise I guess he would have written journaux inédits, wouldn't he?
Well, rightly or wrongly, "Anecdoton" is not in Lewis and Short. "Ephemeris", however, is in, with the sense day-book, diary, ephemeris, and citations from Cicero onwards; it is even given as a sort of title for the emperor Gallienus's allegedly self-published diary or day-book (Hist. Aug. "Gallienus" 18.6). Compare the day-books of Alexander the Great's court, which (in Greek of course) had the same title. Yes, I was aware of the astrological sense of "Ephemeris"; I am not, however, starting an article on Diaries, so there is no need yet for a disambiguation page! Anyway, it appears to be a post-classical sense: Lewis and Short don't mention anything astronomical or astrological s.v. "Ephemeris". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overnight, the vandals[fontem recensere]

Overnight, the vandals appear to have been busy. May I reiterate my suggestion to the magistrates: to those who make mischief, the little wikis may be tempting targets; please be prepared to reconstitute the entirety of Vicipaedia someday. Don't underestimate the possibility that every article will almost at once undergo unwanted alterations! IacobusAmor 14:31, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quomodo sic facere possumus? Possumusne ad propositum automatis sicut UVbot uti? Quomodo id faciunt apud Wikipediam Anglicam?--Rafaelgarcia 15:11, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't overnight this side of the pond. Are magistrates evenly distributed on both sids? this could be a solution--Xaverius 16:14, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it seems that there are 6 in the Americas and 5 in Europe--Xaverius 16:15, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure you caught all of them? Debelloeuphratice may not have been the first. My recollection is that the attacks were beginning before I went to bed, which would have been before Western Europe had gotten out of bed! I'd go back & check, except that they've scrolled off the list of Nuper mutata, and I don't see how to go back & look at the Nuper mutata from earlier days. IacobusAmor 17:41, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to check the last 250/500 conlationes in the nuper mutata... I'm off to bed now, for instance, but if tomorrow morning I search the last 500 conlationes I'll see my own changes. A Vandal would be easy to spot. Anyway, as a small wiki we are, maybe more magistrates are needed(?)--Xaverius 23:22, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A fuit primus (B) qui C"[fontem recensere]

Did this structure makes sense to Cicero? The question arises from a sentence that one may still (at the moment!) find in Vicipaedia:

1. Marcus Iulius Cotius . . . primus Cotius qui sciamus est.

(Please ignore the unfortunately postponed est, as that's a different issue.) Is this idiom acceptable or not? To native English-speakers, the pattern of A fuit primus [B] qui C makes perfect sense as a word-for-word rendering of a common idiom, but one wonders about the Latin. For reference, here are similarly constructed sentences in Vicipaedia:

2. Iohannes Wallis fuit primus qui lemniscum quasi symbolum infinitatis in litteratura mathematica introduxit.
3. Blasius Merrem fuit primus qui divisit aves in ratitas et carinatas.
4. Cuba fuit paenultima civitas in hemisphaera occidentale quae servitudinem omnino abrogavit.
5. Christianus Huygens erat primus astronomus cui erat notio utendorum instrumentorum observationis.
6. Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus . . . , secundus eorum qui dicuntur "quinque imperatores boni."

In E. C. Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax (1959, p. 71), we find a note on the adverbial use of "a number of adjectives," including primus, and among the cited examples is this lovely line (Georgics, 4.134):

primus vere rosam atque autumno carpere poma
He was the first to pluck the rose in spring and apples in the autumn

(That's Woodcock's gloss.) Woodcock explains: "It will be seen that adjectives so used must be translated in English by an adverb or adverbial phrase, or they must be made the predicate ('He was the first to . . .'). This usage is not a merely a Latin peculiarity, but is a relic from the time before adverbs had evolved." Converting the first four cited examples to Vergil's syntax yields these results:

1. Marcus Iulius Cotius . . . [fuit] primus Cotius sciri.
2. Iohannes Wallis fuit primus lemniscum quasi symbolum infinitatis in litteratura mathematica introducere.
3. Blasius Merrem fuit primus aves in ratitas et carinatas dividere.
4. Cuba fuit paenultima civitas in hemisphaera occidentale servitudinem omnino abrogare.

Is Vergil's syntax acceptable everywhere? or is A fuit primus [B] qui C actually preferable in prose? ¶ The last two cited examples seem to require some extra work:

5. Christianus Huygens erat primus astronomus notionem utendorum instrumentorum observationis habere.
6. Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus . . . , secundus dici inter "quinque imperatores bonos" [esse].

So what's the story? IacobusAmor 12:59, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonjour, Je ne réponds pas à votre question (j'en serais bien incapable), mais attire votre attention sur une erreur commise depuis la traduction de la Vulgate – et qu'on voit encore au générique des Déspérèt Ouzouivz… – : « pomum » désigne un fruit (presque en général ; notre bon Gaffiot national – qui aimait le vin ! – lexicalise ainsi : « pōmum 1 fruit [à pépin ou à noyau ; figue, datte, noix] ¶ 2 arbre fruitier ») et non la « pomme » – traduction paresseuse, n'est-elle pas ? – qu'on attribue au jardin d'Éden et à la pauvre Ève… Et comme en France – contrairement à la perfide Albion – nous avons d'excellents traducteurs, Maurice Rat traduit G. 4, 134 par « Il était le premier à cueillir la rose au printemps et les fruits en automne » et pour B. 7, 54 « leurs fruits gisent, épars çà et là, sous les arbres qui les ont portés ». --Budelberger 13:58, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]
Il faut l'admettre, Budelberger montre la trahison des traducteurs d'Albion. en:L. P. Wilkinson dit "He was the first in spring to gather roses, / in autumn to pick apples". en:Cecil Day Lewis a même manqué le sens de primus: "His the first rose of spring, the earliest apples in autumn".
On peut attribuer l'erreur à en:John Dryden: "For every bloom his trees in spring afford, / An autumn apple was by tale restored"; ou à un prédécesseur que je ne connais pas. Peut-être, Budelberger, ces Anglais, prêts à l'aventure européenne, fixent leurs yeux sur le français (pomme = apple) plutôt que sur le latin?! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vide pomum Saepe autem id melius esse pro mali arboris fructu dicere pomum quam malum eo consilio, ut sensum nefarium religiosumque illius fructus evitent, vel disambiguationis causa.:) --Rafaelgarcia 14:29, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice one, Rafael! De hoc verbo vide etiam Malo malo malo malo et Disputatio:Malo malo malo malo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Au contraire, mes amis, malgré l'étymologie, je crois que ces poètes très vénérés, Dryden et Day Lewis, n'ont pas commis une bévue, et par conséquent l'erreur n'est point erreur. Vergil a contrasté deux choses concrètes: une fleur spécifique et un fruit spécifique. La parallèle c'est evidente! À cause de la symétrie ou coordination des images, il faut que nous choisions version 1 ou version 2:
1. He was the first to pluck the rose in spring and apples in the autumn.
2. He was the first to pluck flowers in spring and fruits in the autumn.
Si nous avons de la rose au printemps, nous assurément avons besoin d'un fruit particulier en automne. Esthétiquement, les images l'exigent. Mais quel fruit? En anglais, le substantif apples suffit. [Pardon my français; I had but two semesters of it, four decades ago.] IacobusAmor 16:49, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taratata, ami et client d'UV, patron ; en B. 7, 54, les arbres dont les poma gisent par terre sont des genévriers et des châtaigniers ; et d'un seul coup, parmi les milliers d'espèces possibles, on tombe pile sur le faux-ami vulgatesque pommier ?!… Et s'il vous faut vraiment un parallèle, il en faut un deuxième : rosam, singulier, et poma, pluriel… Remarquez, rosa peut être un collectif : « les roses » ; sans atteindre, semble-t-il, jusqu'au sens général de « fleurs » ; dommage, on aurait eu « les fleurs » et « les fruits » ! Ou alors… c'est un scoop, on a là l'attestation de rosa = collectif = « les fleurs »… --Budelberger 17:19, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg). (Vous pouvez écrire en étranger, voire – j'horresque le référant ! – en albionique, pour votre commodité ; pour la mienne, je n'écris qu'en la langue universelle, le français, car tout le monde le comprend, et c'est en lui que je fais le moins de fautes ; et moi, je pourrais faire quarante semestres d'anglais il y a deux ans, je n'y atteindrais jamais la cheville de votre français. Le monde est trop injuste.)Reply[reply]
De: "Et s'il vous faut vraiment un parallèle, il en faut un deuxième : rosam, singulier, et poma, pluriel… Remarquez, rosa peut être un collectif : « les roses » ; "—Oui, rosam (s.) vs. poma (pl.): mais peut-être notre poète a évité le pluriel rosas parce que cette lettre ā (dans le suffixe -ās) au lieu de ă (dans le suffixe -ăm) détruirait le mètre. IacobusAmor 19:34, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[I wrote this at the same moment as Budelberger:] Iacobus might be right, if we are prepared to believe (a) that Lewis and Short and the Oxford Latin Dictionary completely failed to notice that "pomum" in classical Latin might mean precisely apple; (b) that Vergil loved simple symmetry as much as Dryden loved it. Actually I could believe the first more easily than the second! [--But, to clarify my opinion, I don't believe it: I'm with Maurice Rat on this.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:28, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Néanmoins, je trouve que ce type de phrase est (ou pourrait être) une attestation intéressante de sens (ou de glissement de sens) ; en effet, si on prête aux Anciens notre cartésianisme, sens de la symétrie, etc., on peut penser que pomum prend au ~ Ier siècle un sens très précis (par opposition à rosa), ou que rosa prend un sens très générique (lycée de Versailles). Toutefois, deux bémols :
1. Les Anciens, à l'exception de Thucydide fils d'Aloros et d'Arrien de Nicomédie, ne sont que de sombres crétins, les deux Pline en tête ;
2. On a là un vers ; et en poésie, peu importe le sens : c'est la quantité syllabique (et même pas vocalique !), dans le cas du latin, qui compte : on ne choisit donc pas ses mots en fonction de ce qu'on veut dire, mais selon des schémas rigides. Vive la prose !
--Budelberger 19:49, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC) (Flag of France.svg).Reply[reply]
Well, revenons à nos moutons. I totally agree with Iacobus: Latin doesn't work like that, and his initial examples, 1-5, all need improvement (not 6, I believe). Since such expressions ("he was the first man to ..." and I may add "it is the third largest city in ...") are a commonplace of encyclopedias, we need to know how best to say them in Latin. I am going to add a couple of thoughts.
I was amazed at first by Vergil's use of an infinitive in this line. Woodcock's two other examples do not use the infinitive, and to be quite honest I don't think you can use the Latin infinitive in this way (primus [sum] + inf. = "[I am] the first to ..."), nor can I find anywhere where Woodcock discusses this use. So I looked at the Latin context. OK, now I see it. The infinitive (which is the only verb in this "sentence") follows, at some distance, a line in which Vergil says that he remembers, "memini ...". So the infinitive is indirect: what's happening in this line is part of what Vergil remembers. He remembers that the old man was the first who picked fruits, etc.
So, English can say "the first to pick..."; French can say "le premier à cueillir ..."; Latin can't. And that's why, I'm sorry to say, I think Iacobus's revised sentences are no good. I feel sure Cicero and Vergil would not understand them.
Yes, that had me worried, but your explanation makes sense! IacobusAmor 16:09, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, time to be positive. How do we do this? The answer comes if we convert Vergil's line from indirect to direct speech, and therefore from the infinitive to a finite verb. It will now read: "primus vere rosam atque autumno carpebat poma" (imperfect, because this is what the old peasant at Taranto used to do every year). He was the first [among his neighbours] to pick roses in spring and fruits in autumn. And the sentence now agrees with Woodcock's other examples with "primus", which have finite verbs.
Woodcock is showing us "primus" used adverbially, and therefore (other things being equal) alongside a finite verb. So we don't want a "fuit", and we don't want an infinitive. Converting the six examples to Vergil's syntax – and to direct rather than indirect speech – and noting that he puts primus first in the sentence -- gives the following, more or less:
1. Primum Marcum Iulium Cotium ... scimus omnium qui hoc cognomen habuerint.
2. Primus Iohannes Wallis in litteratura mathematica lemniscum quasi symbolum infinitatis introduxit.
3. Primus Blasius Merrem aves in ratitas et carinatas divisit.
4. Paenultima omnium in hemisphaera occidentali civitatum Cuba servitudinem abrogavit.
5. Christiano Huygens primo astronomorum venit notio instrumentorum observationis utendorum.
6. Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus ... secundus eorum qui dicuntur "quinque imperatores boni." (No change needed, in fact.)
What do others think of this conclusion? I am sure these attempts will not be the last word ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example from Pliny (who would have been an assiduous contributor to Vicipaedia: how much we miss him!) "Cerasia ante victoriam Mithridaticam L. Luculli non fuere in Italia ... Is primum invexit e Ponto." Sour cherries did not exist in Italy before Mithridates's defeat by Lucullus ... He was the first to introduce them from the Pontus. Pliny isn't using "primus" as an adjective with adverbial sense, but "primum" as an adverb. Pliny's sentence is about half the length of (my) English translation. I like the conciseness of Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:11, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I've raised a nonissue here! A search for primus qui via Google turns up several classical examples. The one most readily found may be a famous line by Tibullus: "Quis fuit horrendos primus qui protulit enses?" And then there are examples in the Aeneid: "ille meos, primus qui me sibi iunxit, amores abstulit" (book 4) and "Nosco crines incanaque menta regis Romani, primus qui legibus urbem fundabit" (book 6). From later times, we have "Cui successit frater ejus Henricus primus qui bonas leges condidit in Anglia" (Welsh Chronicle, ca. 1298), "Et ita si quis dicat, quod empedocles fuit primus, qui dixit bonum et malum esse principia," and plenty more! IacobusAmor 19:15, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's certainly a relief!--Rafaelgarcia 02:38, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I take it back: Latin does work like that sometimes! But the briefer ways of doing it are worth trying, so long as the resulting sentence is clear: short + clear = good, I think (except that it doesn't help us with our page-length statistics!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Categoria:Vivi[fontem recensere]

This category was suggested by Iacobus somewhere above. see #Vivi? above --UV 13:47, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC) It now exists. Anyone who in browsing encounters a biographical page about a still-living person, or makes a new page of that kind, should add Categoria:Vivi to it. As we grow, this could help us to limit vandalism in this sensitive subject area. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a way that UV's bot could do it? We have numerous professional bicyclists, for example, and quite a few currently living actors, governors, legislators, mayors, singers, etc. IacobusAmor 13:29, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes and no. Please see the list at Vicipaedia:Dump/Birth and death categories#(Presumably) living people. This list obviously contains quite a number of errors. If someone manages to compile a corrected list, then it would be easy to feed this corrected list to UVbot to have Categoria:Vivi automatically added to all the people on this corrected list. --UV 13:47, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a related note: Categoria:Vivi is currently a hidden category, which means that it is not usually displayed visibly on the articles that are members of this category. In my view, it should be unhidden, because it actually characterizes the subject of the article (like the category indicating the birth year, the nationality and the profession) and not just characterizes the quality of the article as it currently stands (like our - hidden - latinitas categories). --UV 13:53, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made it hidden, but I have no objection to "unhiding" it if it's better that way. I'll do so, unless anyone objects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After discussion here in the Taberna and at Disputatio Categoriae:Vivi#de titulo huius categoriae, I will move Categoria:Vivi to Categoria:Homines vivi in a few days. If you disagree, please voice your opinion at Disputatio Categoriae:Vivi#de titulo huius categoriae. Greetings, --UV 21:34, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category moved to Categoria:Homines vivi per Disputatio Categoriae:Homines vivi#de titulo huius categoriae. --UV 22:43, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vicipaediae praeferentiae gadgets[fontem recensere]

To display ligatures in Vicipaedia, all one has to do is choose 1.praeferentiae meae 2. gadgets and click on 3. Ligaturas monstrare (æ, œ)

I wonder how this translation was accomplished? The question came up in an email discussion about converting GNOME into latin, where someone (Paul Norton) asked me :"To me these translated files end up as a certain UTF-8 binary representation in a file, and the binary representation for AE is not the same as the binary representation for Æ. I'm curious how vicipædia does it then because the vicipædia webpage is stored in a certain representation and somehow it or the browser (or more likely both) figures out how to display either AE or Æ."--Rafaelgarcia 02:56, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, this is done via JavaScript. When a user has enabled a certain gadget, this causes one or more JavaScript documents and/or CSS documents to be included in every page that this user views (for a list, see Specialis:Gadgets). As to the ligatures gadget, the JavaScript script is executed in the user's browser every time a page is loaded, looks for all occurrences of "ae" and "oe" within the page and replaces them with "æ" and "œ", respectively. While this works well for web pages, I do not think that this avenue can be used for the GNOME translation. Greetings, --UV 00:32, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin for awarding/receiving academic degrees[fontem recensere]

Let me do this quickly in English while it's fresh in mind. This question is in immediate reference to Leonardus Bernstein, but it applies to everybody who has obtained an academic degree, of any kind. Casually, we might say:

1. He graduated from Harvard in 1939.

Or more fully & formally, we might say something like:

2. He graduated with honors [or cum laude] from Harvard College in 1939.

To cover all necessary points, however, the whole of Vicipaedia will want contain, somewhere, all these facts:

3. The President and Fellows of Harvard College (at Harvard University) awarded him the degree of Bachelor of Arts cum laude at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on [day month] 1939.

If we pack all that kind of info into a sentence in the bio of everybody who has received a degree, we're going to have a great deal of redundancy throughout the encyclopedia. (Of course, since "Vicipaedia isn't paper," as our founder says, such redundancy may not matter.) Presumably, some of that info belongs primarily in the article on the degree-granting institution. Here, it would include the facts that "President and Fellows of Harvard College" is the legal name of the corporation that grants all degrees at Harvard University (yes, including doctoral degrees), that the college is incorporated in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that "Bachelor of Arts" is an academic degree, and maybe other facts I haven't thought of. ¶ So let's take all that out & put it in the article for Collegium Harvardianum (which should be a separate article from Universitas Harvardiana), and then we'll be left with something like version 2 above. Is that OK with everybody? If so, what's the most idiomatic Latin way of saying it? ¶ Also, specifying the alumnus's class could be important because some students graduate earlier or later than the date of their matriculation ordinarily implies; at Harvard, for the purposes of fundraising, attending reunions, etc., such alumni have to choose the social class with which they want to remain: so some graduates "received the degree in 1966 as of the class of 1967" or some such wording. How would Latin handle that kind of expression? IacobusAmor 14:42, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, an imprecision: "He graduated with honors [or cum laude] from Harvard College in 1939" doesn't specify the degree. Generally, people who graduate from American colleges receive the degree of bachelor of arts; but for some, it's a bachelor of sciences, or a bachelor of education. So the minimum required for each bio of a college graduate might want to take this form:
4. He received an A.B. with honors from Harvard College in 1939.
Also, the names of the degrees and their abbreviations vary: at Harvard, it's an A.B. (Artium Baccalaureus), but at many other American colleges, it's a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts). A reputable encyclopedia should specify this sort of thing. ¶ How to do all the things mentioned above without being overly finicky? IacobusAmor 14:50, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Leigh wrote something on the degrees we have in Oxford: Gradus academici apud Universitatem Oxoniensem--Xaverius 16:05, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, our degrees are a little different ;-) Leigh (disp) 16:49, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and French degrees may be differenter still! (Not to mention degrees from other cultures.) Eventually, ut opinor, Vicipaedia should have an article on each degree. IacobusAmor 18:45, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also "Tabula expensarum pro unoquoque cradu academico", Universitatis Eblanae, anno 1908. On the gradus Oxonienses page, shouldn't artium liberalium bacc. be translated as bachelor of liberal arts rather than as bach. of fine arts? Also shouldn't it be Bacc. in arte ingeniaria rather than Bacc. in ingeniaria? Or do the terms not translate directly due to traditions?--Rafaelgarcia 17:09, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The degree that I have called artium liberalium bacc. is bachelor of fine arts in English, so either the Latin is wrong or I knew something then that I have since forgotten. If you think that Magister in arte ingeniaria is a better translation of master of engineering then, by all means, use that. Leigh (disp) 10:45, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leigh, are they your own translations or are they the names of latin degrees attested from the university's documents? If they are your translations I guess it would be ok for others to change them to what are thought to be better ones, but if they are attested in university documents that wouldn't be appropriate.
Regardless, Latin for liberal arts is "artes liberales", which is different from fine arts "bellae artes". On the other hand, I recognize that notions of what is liberal art has changed over the years, but in general artes liberales include mathematics, astronomy, etc., things thought worthy of freemen to study who are not particularly worried to get into specific careers right after graduating, but things that are fine arts are things like sculpture and painting and certain performance art such as ballet, which is a different focus.--Rafaelgarcia 11:03, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am surprised by what Leighus says, because in most British universities a B.A. is a "bachelor of arts" ("fine" is not specified) and those "arts" correspond roughly to what some other people call "liberal arts". I hadn't heard of a "bachelor of fine arts" before. Admittedly, Oxford is odd. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:26, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, we are odd; and I think that our Fine Art course is especially odd. The B.F.A. even has its own gown
So it is artium liberalium baccaulareautus or artium bellarum baccalaureatus?--Rafaelgarcia 01:24, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tofus (tophus)?[fontem recensere]

Quae sunt nomina recta pro tufa ( et tuff (, simillibus verbis Anglicis? Ait en: "Tuff should not be confused with tufa, another type of rock." Ambo nomina Anglica de nomine Latino tofi deducta sunt (ex lingua Italica). IacobusAmor 12:18, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ait Words:
tophus, tophi  N (2nd) M   [XXXDX]    lesser
tufa, pourous rock; volcanic tuff/tufa;
--Rafaelgarcia 13:01, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ergo nobis oportet Latine non distinguere verbo Anglico tufa verbum Anglicum tuff? Ambo ad nomen tofi convertenda sunt? Miminerimus: "Tuff should not be confused with tufa." Duos commentarios hic desiderabimus: pro en:tufa et pro en:tuff. IacobusAmor 13:55, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vitruvius may have something on tophus, which he liked very much (not as much as he loved concrete, but still). I'll check after lectures.--Xaverius 13:59, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aut possumus pro "Tufa" dicere "Tophus aquaticus", aut fingere "Topha" exemplum Anglicum sequentes...Dubito Vitruvium dicere de Topha quod ea videtur solum prodigium Americanum.--Rafaelgarcia 14:21, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vel facile possumus creare nomen tufa, -ae pro (Anglice) 'calcium carbonate naturally precipitated in large bodies of water' et retinere nomen tofus, -i (=tophus, -i) pro (Anglice) 'tuff'. IacobusAmor 16:21, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noli fingere! Secundum Lewis & Short tofus/tophus est Anglice tufa AND tuff. --Fabullus 19:38, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte dicis, Fabulle. Sed differentia inter "tuff" et "tufa" est tam magna, secundum paginam Wikipediae Anglicae, ut necesse sit nomina distincta habere. Minime possumus scribere, fortasse, "tophus aquaticus" pro "tufa" et "tophus volcanicus" pro "tuff".--Rafaelgarcia 22:59, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This aquaticus misleads because the famously found tufas are high & dry. How about Tofus calcarius (=tufa) and Tofus cinereus (=tuff)? A neat contrast like that should work. Also, I don't believe we're allowing volcanicus in Vicipaedia, are we? It's a handy word, but a volcano is a mons ignifer or mons flammas eructans or some such term, right? IacobusAmor 02:47, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hac in pagina lego Albertum Magnum de basalto scripsisse: 'hic est lapis vulcanicus'; quod si Albertus potuit, et nos possumus nomine 'vulcanicus' uti (nomine magis classico carentes). --Fabullus 07:23, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vulcanicus is an ok word in my opinion, it describes something related to a vulcano or vulcanic activity. and in ancient termnology means "associated with the god Vulcan". Which are the best terms for tuff and tufa is another question entirely. I was naming it after the circumstance which creates it, either through various vulcanic processes or by precipitation from calcium rich water environments. But I think your terms are as good, and since you started the discussion I think your choice should have precedence.--Rafaelgarcia 11:09, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've begun one of them and shall start the other later. I assumed that calcium carbonate is calcium carbonatum and calcite is calcitus, -a, -um and limestone is calx and (chemical) precipitation is praecipitatio chemica, but somebody who knows chemistry may want to check such things. ¶ How should the category Calx be organized? The English version contains sixty-eight entries ( What category should Calx be a subset of? Andrew? IacobusAmor 13:34, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it, then, that you reject what I suggested above concerning chemical nomenclature? --Fabullus 13:46, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not intentionally. I was taking the second word of the English phrase calcium carbonate to be an adjective, making the phrase in effect "carbonated calcium" (instead of "calciumed carbonate"), hence the Latin adjective carbonatus, -a, -um. As a native speaker, that's how I parse the phrase; but since English carbonate can be a noun, that parsing could of course be arguable, especially since we can say "carbonate of calcium." ¶ The reference given above doesn't explain the compounds. For 'calcium citrate', would calcii citras be recommended? IacobusAmor 14:33, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That probably isn't how it properly works in latin, based on what I've read. Although there may be some sources that have "calcium carbonatum" for calcium carbonate (CaC03), the right name is "calcii carbonas". Carbonatum means "carbonated" as in something done to the thing modified, i.e. "potio carbonata" = "carbonated drink"; carbonatum means you've added carbonas CO3 to it, and it potentially may not have the specified 1:1 (1 Ca : 1 C03) stoichiometry for the compound, but calcii carbonas unambiguously identifies the compound with the 1:1 stoichiometry. I think Calcii citras would be correct, following the pattern, but I haven't looked it up.--Rafaelgarcia 17:11, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've fixed it, having changed asperum crassumque calcii carbonati depositum to asperum crassumque calcii carbonatis depositum. The hyperbaton is a bit complicated now ('a rough and thick of carbonate of calcium deposit'), but one doubts that a native speaker of Latin would have trouble with it. IacobusAmor 17:19, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suffixum -ite in Anglicis mineralium nominibus[fontem recensere]

Nobis certe oportet indicem mineralium habere. (Vide en:Index of minerals.) Quid est suffixum Latinum pro nominibis Anglicis sicut abelsonite, abenakiite-(Ce), abernathyite, abhurite, abswurmbachite, actinolite, acuminite, adamite, &c.? Suffixum -itum, -i, n.? ¶ Negamus nomen aragonite in nostro commentario Aragonite revera esse verbum Latinum. ¶ Ait Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary rectum suffixum Latinum pro his mineralibus est -ites. Sed quomodo declinatur? IacobusAmor 18:54, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certe ut in aevo Romano mineralium nomina anthracites, haematites, molochites, porphyrites, pyrites, etc. declinabantur—cum prima declinatione Graeca (xxxxites, -ae, masc.) —Mucius Tever 00:02, 2 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usor:WikimediaNotifier/notifications[fontem recensere]

A user has created a system of global notifications on noteworthy developments concerning the Wikimedia projects, where “global notification” means that news items are automatically “pushed” to the page User:WikimediaNotifier/notifications on every wikimedia wiki. The system is very new, so I cannot describe exactly what kind of news is going to be conveyed, but I invite everyone to add the page Usor:WikimediaNotifier/notifications to your watchlist. Greetings, --UV 00:15, 2 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UVbot[fontem recensere]

Who is wondering why UVbot has disappeared ... it/he has got the flag. ;-) --Rolandus 07:37, 3 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still, I invite everyone to check UVbot's contributions at Specialis:Conlationes/UVbot and to tell me (or any magistratus in order to block UVbot) when anything goes wrong! --UV 21:35, 3 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magistratus[fontem recensere]

Videte s.v.p. Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:54, 4 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Una voce contradicente, Xaverius conclamatione fere universali elegimus! Fortasse Adam episcopus noster permissiones eius augescerit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

de:Korallenriff, en:coral reef, es:arrecife de coral, fr:récif de coraux, it:barriera corallina[fontem recensere]

Quid est optimum Latinum? Hactenus adhibuimus curalii scopulus et scopulus corallinus. IacobusAmor 18:20, 9 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puto meliorem esse scopulum corallinum quod et similis ac Italice est ( :) ), et nisi fallor maluerunt Romani hanc formam (exempli gratia : "Domus aurea" et non "Domus ex auro" "Bellum gallicum" et non "Bellum contra Gallos" et cetera).


It seems to me that "Taenia corallina" would be better since, Lewis and short give taenia for reef. Whereas scopulus is only given for a solid projecting rock or shelf in the sea, a reef consists of a bunch of rocks, more like a agger. (see 20:24, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Hues: Translation of Dutch and Latin texts[fontem recensere]

Hi, please help provide the English translations of the following Dutch and Latin texts that appear in the article. Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee 19:56, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC), updated 15:47, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch[fontem recensere]

  • Tractaet ofte Handelinge van het gebruyck der Hemelscher ende Aertscher Globe: In't Latyn eerst beschreven door Robertvm Hves, Mathematicum / en nu in Nederduytsch over-geset en met diversche nieuwe Verklaringen en Figuren vermeerdert en verciert / oock vele disputable questien gesolveert, door Iohannem Isacivm Pontanvm, Medicyn, en Professor der Philosophie inde vermaerde Schole te Harderwyck (Amsterdam: Iudocus Hondius, woonende op den Dam). — translation has been provided by a member of WikiProject Netherlands. — Ave, JackLee disputatio 16:03, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin[fontem recensere]

  • Herōologia Anglica, hoc est clarissimorvm et doctissimorvm aliqovt [sic] Anglorvm qvi florvervnt ab anno Cristi M.D. vsq' ad presentem annvm M.D.C.XX viuae effigies vitae et elogia.
  • Historia et Antiquitatis Universitatis Oxoniensis duobus voluminibus comprehensae. – translations have been provided. Thanks! — Ave, JackLee disputatio 17:32, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tractatus duo quorum primus de globis coelesti et terrestri, eorum usu, à Roberto Hues, Anglo, conscriptus. Alter breviarium totius orbis Terrarum, Petri Bertii. Nunc primum luci commißi.
  • Tractatvs de Globis Coelesti et Terrestri eorvmqve vsv: Primum conscriptus & editus à Roberto Hues Anglo semelque atque iteram à Iudoco Hondio excusus, & nunc elegantibus iconibus & figuris locupletatus: ac de novo recognitus multisque observationibus oportunè illustratus ac passim auctus opera ac studio. Iohannis Isacii Pontani Medici & Philosophiæ Professoris in Gymnasio Gelrico Hardervici (Amsterdam: Excudebat Henricus Hondius, sub signo Canis Vigilantis in Platea Vitulina prope Senatorium).
  • Tractatus duo mathematici. Quorum primus de globis coelesti et terrestri, eorum usu, a Roberto Hues ... conscriptus. Alter breviarium totius orbis terrarum, Petri Bertii ... Editio prioribus auctior & emendatior (Oxford: Excudebat L. Lichfield, impensis Ed. Forrest).
  • Depositum viri literatissimi, morum ac religionis integerrimi, Roberti Husia, ob eruditionem omnigenem, Theologicam tum Historicam, tum Scholasticam, Philologicam, Philosophiam, præsertim vero Mathematicam (cujus insigne monumentum in typis reliquit) Primum Thomæ Candishio conjunctissimi, cujus in consortio, explorabundis velis ambivit orbem: deinde Domino Baroni Gray; cui solator accessit in arca Londinensi. Quo defuncto, ad studia henrici Comitis Northumbriensis ibidem vocatis est, cujus filio instruendo cum aliquot annorum operam in hac Ecclesia dedisset et Academiae confinium locum valetudinariae senectuti commodum censuisset; in ædibus Johannis Smith, corpore exhaustus, sed animo vividus, expiravit die Maii 24, anno reparatae salutis 1632, aetatis suæ 79.
  • Oxonii in parochiâ Sancti Aldati, inque Domicilio speciatim lapides, e regione insignis Afri cærulei, fatis concessit, et in ecclesiâ Ædis Christi Cathedrali humatus fuit an: dom: CIƆIƆXXXII.
  • In laminâ œneâ, eidem pariati impactâ talem cernis inscriptionem.

Visit Ancient Rome ... with Google Earth[fontem recensere] --Rolandus 09:05, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is just awewsome! although I have a couple of things to say about the reconstructions, but nevertheless, very impressive--Xaverius 10:23, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plantilla (formula) de citación[fontem recensere]

Quisiera preguntar si existe alguna plantilla de formato para citaciones? De antemano gracias. --El Mexicano 19:54, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veniam da, Mexicane. Habemus {{Citatio}}, {{Citatio2}}, {{Citatio3}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. --El Mexicano 11:01, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aspadana (-ae, f.) an (-orum, n.)?[fontem recensere]

Pagina Aspadana nos certiores facit hoc fuisse nomen antiquum eius urbis quae nunc Isfahan appellatur. Equidem scire velim quibus fontibus antiquis (Graecis aut Latinis) haec urbs memoretur, et primaene sit declinationis nomen singularis numeri (gen. -ae) an secundae declinationis neutri generis et pluralis numeri (gen. -orum), tamquam aliae urbes Persicae Susa, Ecbatana et Bactra. --Fabullus 08:45, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unicam mentionem huius urbis fecisse videtur Claudius Ptolemaeus in Geographia 6.4.4. Sed, heu, textum Graecum non habeo ... --Fabullus 09:32, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, textus Ptolemaei nobis dat: Ἀσπάδανα: igitur probabiliter 2. decl. neut. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago et tecum consentio Aspadana exemplum Susorum, Ecbatanorum et Bactrorum sequi oportere. Haec in pagina includam. --Fabullus 10:11, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cassell's nobis dat: "Bactra -orum, n. pl." IacobusAmor 13:54, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita est! Et Andreae citatio nos docet Aspadana eandem declinationem sequi: aliter enim Graece Ἀσπαδάνη scripta esset.--Fabullus 14:17, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirectiones[fontem recensere]

It strikes me that even when we decide a title was a mistake, or badly chosen, it's a good idea -- after moving the page -- not to go back and delete the redirect. At least, not without careful thought, and not too quickly. There are at least two reasons: 1. there may still be links within Vicipaedia pointing to that title; 2. there may be interwiki links pointing to it. It's easy to check for (1) but (so far as I know) there's no easy way of checking for (2). If the redirect is left there, the bots will eventually correct those interwiki links. If the redirect is deleted, they can't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. --Rolandus 23:08, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoriae[fontem recensere]

Is our scheme for distributing writers among categories compatible with that of the larger wikis? To test the hypothesis that it is, I've copied en:'s categories for Carolus de Brosses into Vicipaedia (with an additional one of my own), leaving us with:

Categoria:Antiquariani Francici
Categoria:Homines ex Divione
Categoria:Interpretes Francici
Categoria:Philologi Francici
Categoria:Philosophi Francici
Categoria:Scriptores de peregrinationibus Francici
Categoria:Scriptores epistolarum Francici
Categoria:Scriptores saeculi duodeviginti Francici

Is that OK? or how else should we organize the categories? ¶ Side issue: temporarily, I'm assuming that Antiquariani is OK for more proper classical phrasing, Homines rebus antiquarum studiosi, and Homines ex [nomine urbis] is OK for [nomen urbis adiectivum] (e.g., Lutetiani, Matritenses, Noveboracenses, Toletani), as this is just a test-case, and for those categories better cataloguers can perhaps furnish better forms to follow. ¶ Also, since de Brosses famously coined the term Polynesia, one is tempted to set up a new category for "coiners of important words," e.g. Cicero, who coined new philosophical terms (some, though, after Greek usage); Milton Sirotta, who coined googol (which then gave us Google); and so on. How should we Latinize such terms? IacobusAmor 15:43, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be OK when we are much bigger (I think). We have a rule-of-thumb (often ignored! but worth remembering) not to create categories that are unlikely to have about five members pretty soon. And redlink categories are of no current use. We must have bluelink categories; for the present, these will necessarily be much more generalized than those of a wikipedia that has 100 times as many articles as we have. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record: I see nothing wrong with redlinked terms & categories: they're ready to turn blue at a moment's notice! They do have a use: they stud the texts of many of our articles, where they serve as invitations for improvement! IacobusAmor 16:12, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, OK, but the reason we must have bluelink categories is this: they are links that bring people to our articles. They increase page-views; they increase the use of Vicipaedia now. Redlink categories don't do that, and that's why I say (perhaps exaggerating slightly!) that they are of no current use. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting my keyboard where my mouth is, I have now added what seem to me the appropriate bluelink categories to monsieur de Brosses, deleting only the one of yours that was practically synonymous. You'll find the comparison with your translated categories interesting. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:16, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooh. I like Categoria:Epistolographi!—so much that I've added it to Voltarius (and we must have other articles into which it wants to descend). ¶ As for Count, Baron, and Lord (seigneur, not monsieur!) de Brosses, I take it that when the red links go blue, the higher-ranking blue ones will want to disappear? IacobusAmor 17:35, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He didn't live long enough to be Citoyen (de) Brosses, did he?
Yes, that's right. Amabo te, please prefer Franciae rather than Francici even if it goes against the Latinitas grain; because the genitive-of-country-name style works better across the whole range of countries, and is easier to apply, believe me. And keep in mind that if the category isn't going to grow above 1 or 2 members, it's better to leave it for a while. Very small categories can be a nuisance to actual current users. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Francici wasn't intentional: the adjectival form is my brain's default, and the little gray cells were much too busy for their synapses at that juncture! IacobusAmor 01:27, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point, but (as you know) I've always envisioned Vicipaedia to have millions of articles, and prefer to save people's future labor by planning for them now. That's why I've long regretted the format Massimo is using for biographical stubs: it will make later contributors do extra work. ¶ Meanwhile, I must start blueifying some of my categories; as you know, I prefer working on texts—because working on texts, much more than working on categories, forces us to improve our Latin. IacobusAmor 16:10, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How true! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would use antiquarius instead of antiquarianus --Fabullus 21:23, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnitudo commentarii Brasiliae[fontem recensere]

Hic commentarius excellentissimus est 93 chilioctetis longa, sed "aliquae navigatra paginas longiores quam 32 chiliocteti recensere non possunt." Qui paginam in partes minores franget? IacobusAmor 01:27, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we can safely ignore this warning. While it might have been relevant a few years ago, today, all current browsers can properly handle text fields with more than 32 KiB of text. I modified the warning accordingly. --UV 14:16, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Biographia[fontem recensere]

Huic categoriae sunt tantum quadraginta nomina, sed certe habemus plus, fortasse mille vel duo milia?! Quid faciendumst? IacobusAmor 13:30, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide #Category cleanup supra. --UV 14:18, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vide igitur subcategorias categoriae Homines. In categoria Biographia oportet tantum paginas de biographia inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:26, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sydnedium[fontem recensere]

Could somebody with access to Egger check to see whether Egger really gives Sydnedium for Sydney (Australia)? Unknown user has been adding odd & seemingly unattested alternative forms into lemmas, and changed the lemma of Hobart into Hobarthium (without moving the article to that title). IacobusAmor 18:16, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted all the changes. They looked like childishness to me. If anyone thinks they are serious, they can of course be reinstated with a source! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Of course many placenames aren't going to have attestations, but Vasingtopolis was malformed, and Sydnedium (allegedly from Egger) looked improbable. As you say, serious additions can always be reinstated. IacobusAmor 21:11, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of U.S. Constitution or Declaration of Independence[fontem recensere]

Ave. I was wondering if any of the Latin Wikipedians know where I may find a Latin translation of either the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or both. If not, I wonder if anyone here is audacious enough to translate them and add them to Vici Fons. I am enlarging my collection of translations of both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and am at the point where I want to include the classical languages. I already have French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Czech, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, Modern Greek, Dutch, and Portuguese. Now I am looking for a Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit translation. The last two are going to be the most difficult to find, but I am hopeful. Also, if anyone knows where a Finnish translation of the two documents can be found, it would be much appreciated.Andy85719 21:16, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scratch the request for the U.S. Constitution. I found a translation on Rafaelgarcia's user page. I am so happy. I have been looking for a translation for a few years now. Still need to find a Declaration of independence translation though.Andy85719 22:24, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put a lot of time into translating the Constitution, also the Bill of Rights, but other Amendments remain and also the Declaration. And it still needs another proofreading or two.
Unfortunately, Vicifons doesn't accept user translations at the moment, although they may some years in the future. They wouldn't allow my translation at VIcifons for example. They want only attested latin sources. I'm not quite sure that the translation of the Constitution fits in Vicipaedia either, except as a section in an article "about the constitution", as was done for the Bill of Rights. We don't yet have an article on the constitution, but will someday.
Multa facenda sunt, sed tempus fugit! --Rafaelgarcia 22:51, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With my minimum Latin skills, the only things I found wrong with the Constitution translation were an extra "r" typo in Corruptionis and issues with Rogatio Attincturae. I looked it up and I could only find Billa Attincturae where Billa is a corruption of Bulla, like a papal bull. If you look it up with Google, you will see a few sources that show Billa. None say Rogatio. Also, the Letters of Marque bothers me. I found that Marque comes from the French word for frontier. I took a little time to search for the Latin translation but only found reprisal which you correctly translated per custom. Marcharum could very well be correct, because the late Latin word Marcha but Litteras is highly doubtful. If anything, it would be a Rogatio or Billa. The translation of the Bill of Rights is excellent. Still, I am surprised that no one has tried to translate the Constitution up to now. Somebody translated the Harry Potter books and Cat in the Hat but not the Constitution.Andy85719 05:48, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the marque in letters of marque has nothing to do with the French word for 'frontier': it originally meant 'reprisal, retaliation', and it comes from Old Provençal marca, from marcar 'to mark, seize as pledge', which in turn was of Germanic origin, akin to Old High German marcon 'to mark'. ¶ Back in tenth grade, our Latin teacher cited the preamble of the Constitution as being easy to translate, once you discover that almost the whole thing is a series of subjunctives hanging on ut. IacobusAmor 13:44, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rogatio" is the attested latin term for legal "bill" (see the Ius page for references at the bottom), the french "attainder" comes from latin "attinctura", which though it is neolatin, it is explained in the beginning section. As you say Billa is some sort of corruption; and yes I'm sure popes had issued "bulls of attainder" as well, but that is something else. The Letters in "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" were found by me thus attested via google, though I don't remember where.--Rafaelgarcia 11:02, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't 'Epistula' rather than 'Littera' be the right word for 'letter' in this context?AlexTiefling 12:14, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, because of the special sense involved, neither may be the best word; but both epistula and litterae (-arum, pl.) can designate an ordinary epistle. IacobusAmor 13:46, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, Andy, it's nice to see you back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De bellis quae ob successionis causam gesta sunt[fontem recensere]

Sunt in pagina Bellum tres nexus ad nuncupatas « Bellum successionis Hispanicus », « Polonicus » et « Austriacus » futuras paginas. Non dubito an adiectiva haud idonee desinant, quoniam « -icum » vel « -icae » scribere opportet, nec de substantivo « bellum » sequenti longe disputabo. Ut enim mihi videtur, genitivo uti patenter non decet quoniam significandum est ob quam causam neque a quibus civitatibus vel in quibus mundi partibus bella gesta sunt. Itaque usum praepositionis « de » cum ablativo potiorem habeo, sicut in tribus paginis quae bella ab Italis gesta de libertate sua narrant iam factus est. Opinionem tamen certam non habeo utrum « de successione Hispaniae, Poloniae, Austriae » an « de successione ad thronum Hispaniae, etc. » potior (et fortasse Latinitatis rectioris) sit. Quid vobis videtur ? ThbdGrrd 09:40, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Libenter assentio eius modi bella de successione gesta esse. An autem de successione imperii Hispanici aut brevius de successione Hispanica scribendum sit, stomacho auctoris censeo esse conferendum.--Ceylon 20:31, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse casus genetivus ex mente Anglica hic ortus est. Nos enim verbo of pro hoc bello utimur (War of the Spanish Succession); similiter, casu genetivo utimur pro Hundred Years' War (hoc est, War of a Hundred Years, bellum centum annorum). Menti Anglicae, hoc verbum Latinum de 'about' significat, et sententia War about the Spanish Succession, quamquam perspicua, mala videtur. IacobusAmor 20:41, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratiam vobis ago ambobus. Mutanda igitur mutavi et mutabo. ThbdGrrd 15:14, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GuadalaXara, etc.[fontem recensere]

Wouldn't be better to spell it "Guadalachara" or "Guadalahara" in Latin? The form Guadalaxara sounds [gwadala'ksara] and it is not how they pronounce it in Spanish. Deduced ethimological form in Latin would be "Guadalhaiara". (Mexicum is an exceptional case, because in all other languages than Spanish and Portuguese they pronounce it with [ks].) --El Mexicano 12:17, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure Xavieri is sensitive to that issue, but apparently found attested that in latin it is "Guadalaxara". Medievals probably found it more tolerable because they tended to pronounce latin according to their country. I would guess the spanish pronounced the latin X as [x] not [ks], while talians probably pronounced it [xs], etc..--Rafaelgarcia 12:44, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La pronunciación como [x] en castellano ya es un cambio contemporáneo, del siglo XVII. La x del espanol antiguo, hasta el siglo XV, correspondía al sonido de SH en inglés (como en "she"), o como "lasciare" (< LAXARE) en italiano. La evolución ha sido esta: [ks] (latín) > [çs] (latín vulgar) > [S] (romance común y castellano antiguo) > [ç] (castellano del siglo XV-XVI) > [x] (espanol actual). --El Mexicano 15:10, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most often used MediaWiki messages[fontem recensere]

Hoi, the most often used MediaWiki messages (less than 25% of all MediaWiki messages) are the most visible messages. They help our readers and editors the most. We are aiming to get these messages localised for as many languages as possible by the end of the year. Please help us and yourself and localise these messages. Thanks, GerardM 13:37, 17 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]