Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 14

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The name of New Latin[fontem recensere]

Consistently throught this wiki the name Neolatina or some variation is used to indicate the Latin spoken today. For instance, Lexica Neolatina, Lingua Neolatina, Auctores Neolatini.

This is at variance with standard academic usage, which is represented by the English pages, where New Latin is that used from the Renaissance to the 19th century and Contemporary Latin refers to that used today. This is also a very useful distinction, but our appropriating of Neolatina for the latter means that we have no single term for the former.

I think that the English distinction should be observed here, too. We should distinguish Latina noua from Latina moderna. Pantocrator 04:15, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record: editions in the series of Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionaries (popular in the United States) distinguish, for etymological purposes, among Old Latin, Latin, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, New Latin, and Late Latin; also, they identify certain terms as being in the "International Scientific Vocabulary," and some of them look rather Latinate. IacobusAmor 19:33, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have a single term for 17th-19th century Latin -- we use "recentior", as in Categoria:Auctores Latini recentiores etc. I am not sure if that's your meaning, or whether you wanted a term including Renaissance Latin as well as the later period: in which case, no, I don't think we do have a single term for all of that. In any case, I agree it's unfortunate if our definition of New Latin disagrees with that of others. But are the others consistent among themselves? I'm not sure of that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum Cassell's, 'modern' in lingua Latina est recens, novus, huius aetatis, et per occasionem simpliciter hic, sed scriptores alias formas aliquando adhibent, e.g. 'the modern generation' = homines qui nunc sunt aut vivunt. Secundum Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, modernus est nomen "Late Latin," ex modus. IacobusAmor 12:52, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vicipaedia is consistent with modern usage among latin writers outside of vicipaedia. This differs from the en.wiki usage (they are wrong; single "New Latin" but ecclesiastica, scientifica and humanistica according to the type of use it was put to) and also from the romance usage (where lingua neolatina means the same as romance language). Stop trying to make us into a copy of en.wiki.--24.107.235.195 13:33, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. From the first pages of Google.
If you meant writers IN Latin, you may be right. But don't accuse me of modeling my usage after English Wikipedia, I am following academic use such as the above. Pantocrator 13:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One does not have to be good at latin to contribute to this wiki. However, for a person who hasn't ever strung together a single grammatical latin sentence since he has come here, evidently barely has a grasp of the meaning of latin words, except on the basis from *only* second-hand sources and intuitions from *english* usages, it is remarkable that you so freely offer such imperious, certain opinions as to what may or may not be correct latin usage of any term whatsoever. You should first learn *enough* latin to achieve a first-handed understanding before qualifying yourself to opine anything about latin with certainty. To attempt otherwise is to present yourself in the role of a boorish m****, and I am assuming you wish to be better than that. --130.215.96.89 18:24, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal attacks are inappropriate (and no better for being anonymous). The question raised is a serious one. I don't have easy access to many sources on this, but my quick impression is that en:wiki may correspond better with modern usage, using the term "Neo-Latin" for Latin from the early Renaissance onwards, than we do, using it for the 20th/21st century Latin revival. So perhaps we should consider a different term for this very recent period. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the news from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate series of dictionaries (above). If professional lexicographers make such distinctions, Vicipaedia might want to; but note that they don't necessarily correspond with the classification used by Wikipedia. Lingua Neolatina might perhaps be equivalent to "Late Latin." IacobusAmor 19:42, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fairness to anonymous, he may have been a little upset about this. --Ioscius 19:30, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch! I hadn't seen that! As a rule (experience teaches), everybody here makes mistakes, but few are outright lies. IacobusAmor 19:45, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:=o Second thoughts are better.
The German article on this topic appears independent of the English one and uses a similarly broad definition of "Neulatein" (from the 14th century in fact -- as does my old Encyclopaedia Britannica). I disagree mildly with anonymous A above: although "lingua neolatina" can be used in some Romance languages to mean "Romance language", that usage isn't universal in any of them; and several of the Romance wikipedias have articles corresponding to en:New Latin under titles like the Portuguese pt:Neolatim. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As do all other wikis that have such an article at all. We seem to be out of step with everyone here. Pantocrator 15:04, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The distinction between humanistic latin and neolatin is based more on style and attitude towards inclusion of mediaeval vocabulary than on time per se. Whether taxonomically speaking neolatin should be divided further into two categories one for the recent century and one for earlier is hugely debatable since the language is not in principle any different. The lower quality of latin visible today is mostly just due to the fact that any idiot with a keyboard and internet access can post what he wants, not because there is any huge difference.
Indeed, if you look at the content of the various wiki pages pointed to under the name "New Latin", the language referred to is not any different from neolatin. Those wikis merely use page to describe how latin continues to manifest itself in todays world, describing various latin language institutes that presently exist. So if you want a page like that "lingua Latina hodierna" would suffice.--24.107.235.195 13:45, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what you mean by 'the distinction between humanistic latin and neolatin'. Are you alleging that Larin suddenly changed around 1600 among men of letters? ( As for the distinction en:wiki makes between 'New' (noua) and 'Contemporary' (moderna), the difference is in the manner of use, and is fundamental. That New Latin was used as a living language of communication, while Modern Latin is used more as a toy (even by us), and is also subject to a classical purism that would be rejected by people using the language for practical reasons. Pantocrator 15:03, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps referring to modern latin as a "toy" is more of an admission of how YOUR OWN attitude towards latin and this wiki; it certainly explains your distainful attitudes, bordering on malfeasance as you indiscriminately fill pages with incomprehensible gibberish. In any case, please don't pretend to speak for me or for the rest of us. It is insulting.
As to what humanistic latin is, look it up: it is also called rennaisance latin in english. I wouldn't say the change is sudden as no language changes are sudden or uniform, but yes it changed by a lot, because of the neolatin willingness to adopt new jargon for modern things in science, technology, etc., and the less stict insistence on adhering to classical style and idiom, although still valuing it.--130.215.96.89 15:59, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the references supra: I glanced at five of the six links provided by Pantocrator. They do not refer to the same timespans. Moreover, most of them in general describe timespans which seem to be delineaged also by other properties than being "Neolatin". For reference, in order, they refer to Neolatin in the following timespans:
  1. "the period ca. 1300-1800";
  2. "from the beginning of Italian humanism until the present day";
  3. N/A (I and Jstoor seem to have a disagreement about cookies);
  4. "Latin texts written during the Renaisance and later that are freely available to the general public on the Web";
  5. "Neo-Latin texts from or about the Nordic countries, between 1500 and 1800";
  6. "Journal of Neo-Latin Studies is the leading periodical in the field of medieval, Renaissance, and modern Latin";
My conclusion is that this is inconclusive as to where the "Neolatin era" started or ended, or whether indeed it hasn't ended (including the Vicipaedia texts in the corpus, I presume!). On the other hand, in this handful of places, Neolatin or Neo-Latin certainly covered older material than that from the most recent centuries.
About stilistic versus purely age-based classification: I'm not an expert of Latin, even if I may have composed a handful (in toto) of Latin sentences. I've several times heard and read about the humanists campaign for classical syntax. As far as understand, this has only partially to do with the vocabulary; it was also a question of returning to another kind of dependency of the abundancy of forms and constructions. As I heard it explained, when the forms tended to blur in the vulgar (spoken) Latin, the spoken and eventually also the written language tended to use more 'extra' words (such as prepositions or demonstrative pronouns), in order to gain clarity. Together with this, there was a tendence to avoid longer 'periods', in favour of a simpler syntax.
Some influential humanists, and especially Erasmus Roterodamus, were depicted as having "hugged Latin to death", by insisting on a classical syntax, and criticising the actual speakers and users of Latin for their 'degenerated' usage. This purportedly contributed quite a bit to Lating ceasing to be such a commonly spoken and written language as it was up to the rainessance.
As I'm no expert, I cannot judge to what extent this would be true. However, I'm fairly convinced that several factors contributed. E.g., I find it hard to believe that creating the Italian written language (cf. the Divina Comoedia) just was a reaction against the 'Classical Latin lovers'; and having access to a standardised written Italian IMHO might diminish the usage of Latin as a means of day-to-day communication in Italy. Georgius B
Many thanks, Usor:JoergenB (I think it was you). My impression from all this is that we probably should stop using "... Neolatina" for the 20th/21st century exclusively. That's not a big issue, really; it mainly means changing a couple of category names. "... Latina hodierna" has been suggested above and seems a good substitute. Does anyone object to that change?
The bigger question remains for any editors who might expand the article Lingua Neolatina. Should this article exist? (on the Italian wiki it doesn't). If it does exist, when should it begin and end? Imposing periods on language history is usually controversial, and this is clearly one such case. Anyway, that will not be settled on the Taberna, but by actually writing the history. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
('Scuse me; the signature seemingly disappeared in the final editing.) I think "...latina hodierna" is OK; but they might be included as subcategories of the ...neolatina ones. Georgius B 22:53, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would of course have been an unfortunate way (per the Erasmus idea above), but the question must be asked, is the Latin of the medieval times really the same language as the classical? Granting certainly that much stayed the same, with such different syntactical constructions, different spelling and pronunciation, different vocabulary and different rules of word formation. Like Gregorius' doubts about the real reason for Latin falling off the face of the Italian peninsula, I sometimes wonder whether it is more plausible that Erasmus choked out an already deteriorating daughter language? --Ioscius 23:22, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was the same language in the way that Shakespearean english is the same as modern American english. The spelling and pronunciation are different, the idioms are different, and different syntactical forms are favored; yet they are mutually intelligible. The changes were gradual and for this reason native speakers regard them as the same language, but to an outsider they appear to be different.
However, as far as I can see, the most abrupt change was between mediaeval and humanistic latin, and those changes were primarily four-fold: orthography (spelling), idiom, and vocabulary. These are in order from biggest to smallest change. The insistence on classical spelling, I think, was I think the biggest change, second the insistence on classical idiomatic expressions in favor of mediaeval innovations, third the conscious purging of the language of new mediaeval terms.
Neolatin, I think, can be thought of a backlash to humanistic latin, proceeding from a realization that the humanists went a little too far: you need some new vocabulary for new things, different/simpler expressions are called for in scientific/non scientific writing and to express foreign ideas, and although classical sounds/spellings are nicer, also modern innnotions distinguishing caps/noncaps, periods, semicolons, etc. distinctions are good.--24.107.235.195 04:14, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean "three-fold" rather than "four-fold", or did you forget one item (e.g., grammatical)? Georgius B 15:00, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were there grammatical differences too? --130.215.96.89 16:25, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to our old family Latin grammar (Erik Tidner: Latinsk språklära, 1961), there were also grammatical differences between classical and medieval Latin (he does not mention "Neo-latin"). Some concerned habits more than rules, like employing ille and ipse in positions where they could be used in classical Latin, but were "superfluous" from that point of view; Tidner remarks that they are "on the way" to become determined articles. Similarly, simple verb forms were often replaced by composite ones, e.g. vocabam by vocans eram; I suppose this would have sounded funny but not impossible to old Romans. Accusative + infinitive was often replaced by a relative clause: Scribe, quia ibi est laetitia!, and prepositions were used in many places where they were not 'needed': quinque librae de argento; this construction existed in the classical language, but genitivus partitivus was more common. (On the other hand, medieval Latin in some situations habitually used unadorned case forms, where these were uncommon classically, like the extensive use of ablativus loci: solio residere, and genitivus qualitatis: homines pacis.)
There were also some simplifications in endings, which I suspect would have been considered absolutely wrong from a classical view; e.g., the abl. sg. ending of the present participles was -e, not -i.
I repeat, I'm quoting Tidner; hopefully not misunderstanding too much. I'm no expert. Georgius B 22:38, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one questions that there should be a division between classical and mediaeval or between that and renascentia/humanistica. Are we agreed, though, that we need to do something about the modern classification? At the least we need to acknowledge that having an IW from our neolatin article to the others is wrong. Pantocrator 04:40, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see that. Our article Lingua Neolatina gives a simple definition that pretty well agrees with the others: "spoken from the Renaissance onwards or after the Middle Ages". In temporal terms "a" + ablative is an inclusive "from", as in "a principio" (from [and including] the beginning) and "ab Urbe condita" (from [and including] Rome's foundation).
What we really need to do with that article is to write it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem was the formula, which I've also corrected. Pantocrator 16:48, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spectaculum 'Sesame Street'[fontem recensere]

Quomodo dicitur latine? Via Sesame? Aut melior est dicere "Sesame Street" ad titulam anglicam originalem? "Sesame Street est spectaculum televisionis pro liberis factum anno 1969 etcetera 208.103.66.69 04:43, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adeo "Via Sesame" quam propono! --Jondel 07:17, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quia spectaculi est titulus, titulo 'Sesame Street' oportet uti secundum normas vicipaedianas usque nunc in usu. Postea potes suggerere translationem latinam.--24.107.235.195 13:40, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita vero. Secundum normas tuemur. Si mutari opus est, potius sit magister qui movere sed omnibus non molestia fit si quisquam hoc facere. Heus! Infans istum seriem videbam et non oblivisci adhunc possum! Memini "We'll take... the car to the zoo... The car to the zoo? The car to the zoo!... wini wini ...wini wini.... " quam dicebant "The Whittle bugs(? Mihi non certe sum nomine ). Qualibet istam Sesame Street iucundam esse debebit addituque laborabo postea. --Jondel 00:44, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

37 000[fontem recensere]

Credo paginam nostram no. 37 000 fuisse Punctum (mathematica), ab anonymo creatam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tunc paginarum 10 000 creavimus in anno singulo!--Xaverius 19:33, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rectumne est?--Martinus567 14:49, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of mediaeval Latin[fontem recensere]

Lege: [7] a Vicipaedia Anglica.

Tales, qua necesse cogitare modernum, in multae parte est impossibiles facile in Latina pura. Pantocrator 04:34, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But this very post surely proves you don't even know about intelligible Latin, let alone Latina pura? --Ioscius 23:18, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the more I read, a funnier point emerges. Latin was actually better for describing the world than English. --Ioscius 23:28, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomen Anglicum: scavenger[fontem recensere]

Quid est optimum nomen Latinum? Nobis opus est categoriae sicut Scavengers pro canibus, diabolis Tasmaniensibus, hyaenidis, myxiniformibus, leonibus, &c. IacobusAmor 14:24, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a first attempt, Categoria:Morticinis vescentes, "eaters of carrion meat" (vescor seems to take an ablative). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Traupvir dat cloacarius, quod est, nisi usui, risui. --Ioscius 16:00, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, he actually has "colacarius" in my copy, but presumably that's a typo. It does of course not appear to translate the animal sense of scavenger, but the original human one "A person whose employment is to clean the streets of a city, by scraping or sweeping, and carrying off the filth."[8]Mucius Tever 19:39, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concrete sense of the wanted concept is something like "found-corpse eaters," if that helps. IacobusAmor 20:11, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other languages “scavengers” are called: Port.: detrívoro (< deterere + vorare) / necrofago (< gr. nekros + gr. phagein) - Span.: carroñero o necrófago - Germ.: Aasfresser or Nekrophagen - French: nécrophagia / nécrophage - Ital.: saprofagia / saprofago (< gr. sapros + gr. phagein) = saprobo = detritivoro - Moreover there is a Scarabaeus called “Onthophagus necrophagus ARROW, 1931” (http://www.eol.org/pages/995238). So to my mind “necrophagus” is the best choice.--Utilo 22:19, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cf. etiam: http://www.geodz.com: Ibi sub vocibus “Nekrophagen” sive “Saprophagen” legitur (theodisce): Necrophagi = necrotrophi = necrovori: animalia, quae cadaveribus putrescentibus vivunt, e.g. scarabaei. Sacrophagia (i.e. victus e animalibus nuper mortuis consistens) a saprophagia (i.e. victus in quibuslibet reliquiis cadaverum vel frondis, ligni etc. consistens) distinguitur. Textus originalis: Nekrophagen: Nekrotrophe, Nekrovore, Aasfresser, Bezeichnung für Tiere, die von den verwesenden Leichen anderer Tiere leben, z.B. Aaskäfer. Es wird unterschieden zwischen Sakrophagie (Frass an frisch abgestorbener Substanz tierischen Ursprungs) und der Saprophagie. (http://www.geodz.com/deu/d/Nekrophagen). Saprophage: Saprovore, Totmaterialsverzehrer, Gesamtgruppe der Tiere, die sich von Bestandsabfall in Form von Fallaub, totem Holz, Stroh, Kot (Koprophage) oder Aas (Nekrophage) ernähren. (http://www.geodz.com/deu/d/Saprophage)--Utilo 09:57, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My small dictionary gives purgator viarum as translation for 'scavenger'. This seems close to the 'cloacarius' glosso, and should be as useless here. 'Necrophag-' sounds better in my ears. The choice of precise ending is another matter.
(Category names should be in the plural; whence -us is less apt. Whether the pl. masc. nom. -i should be used, or the pl. neutr. nom./acc. -a is preferred, depends on the usage in other category names, and by biologists. As far as I've understood, classical Latin used neutrum plural forms of adjectives also as a kind of commune, when items of several genders were considered simultaneously; except where the 'items' were men and women, in which case the masculine gender had priority. If this is correct, then from the classical point of view adjective plurals as category names ought to be given neuter form.) Georgius B 15:06, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's odd that so many of the dictionaries would only have that older sense of scavenger; is the biological use so recent? Anyway, given the contents of the category, presumably it'd be neuter plural to agree with animalia. —Mucius Tever 17:09, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in Greek phagos is rather a nomen agentis. But of course Greek is Greek and Latin is Latin ..?.. --Neander 18:44, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By 'nomen agentis' I suppose you mean as a substantive? Out of 93 words in -οφαγος given in Liddell and Scott, only six are given as substantives (τυροφάγος "name of a mouse", πιμελοσαρκοφάγος "sepulchre of fat", ὀψοφάγος "one who eats delicacies", οἰσοφάγος "gullet", ἰαμβειοφάγος "glutton at iambics", βουτυροφάγος "butter-eater"). All the rest (including νεκροφάγος) are ordinary adjectives and would decline like 'eccentros' in Latin. Or am I misunderstanding you? —Mucius Tever 20:17, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you're not misunderstanding me. It was simply a momentary (I hope) fit of inadvertesis blockheadiensis :-/ I stand corrected. --Neander 20:48, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the OED, the first known use of the word in the biological sense, as wanted here (applied to the scavenger beetle, etc.), dates from 1596. So then is the consensus for: categoria:necrophaga? My only worry about it is this: sensu stricto, necrophagi sumus nos homines: we consume hardly any meat that isn't dead! A distinction that may be missed in the literality of necrophagus is that, for the animals to be grouped under this rubric, food is generally (fortuitously) found dead flesh, rather than (as with predatory animals & humans) hunted dead flesh and (as with humans) farmed dead flesh. IacobusAmor 17:27, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it occurred to me, too. Would encephalonecrophaga be zombies? --Ioscius 17:52, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
----
I think this is another case like the 'mechanema' one — it could apply to other things, but does it in practice? The only example use Liddell and Scott have of νεκροφάγος is (apparently) applied to birds, and my dictionary still gives νεκροφάγος for "scavenger" (and vice versa) in modern Greek. —Mucius Tever
Sure, I wasn't arguing against the usage, just making a joke about zombies (which one should do at any available opportunity. --Ioscius 20:28, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The habit tacitly to exclude our own species in diverse biological contexts is a problem, but hardly something solved right here. Besides, the (non-human) categories are a bit floating. I've read that hyaenas both hunt themselves and eat meat from prey brought down by others, e.g., lions; and that on the other hand lions both hunt themselves and eat meat brought down by other hunters, e.g., hyaenas. This makes the classification a bit arbitrary. However, I don't thing this has any bearing on the category name here and now.
As for including Homo in the Categoria:Necrophaga: Speak for yourselves; I'm a vegetarian (and I'm not alone); you could possibly claim that the major part of humanity technically are scavengers, but don't include me:-). Georgius B 14:43, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Western France is back online. I celebrate by pointing out (as I'm sure you others see really) that there is a very clear distinction between those who eat meat that they find dead (which is what the words "carrion" and "morticina" mean) -- I took it that these, dogs, vultures, etc., are what you intend by scavengers -- and those who stick strictly to meat that has been killed for the purpose (including cats and those humans who eat meat at all). It's just playing with words, in my view, to confuse the categories and put humans in the same one as vultures.
Do we eat cows that happen to have died? Rightly or wrongly, no, we don't. We only eat cows that have been killed to eat. Do vultures eat cows that have died? Yes, they do.
Humans have been known to eat animals that have died. The anthropological film Dead Birds shows at least two instances of that: a community eats a (domestic) pig that has died, and a boy eats a dead bird that he has found in the woods. IacobusAmor 11:37, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although my "morticinis vescentes" might be the most precise available expression in pure Latin, it's nice to see that, once more in this case, the Greeks had a word for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laudavere aut laudaverunt?[fontem recensere]

Cum paginas de terris ab amico nostro ignoto (qui vix in disputationis pagina sua responderet, itaque huc directe scribo) legi, vidi eum quodam elemento grammatico fortasse controverso uti, nominatim:

  • ... terrae Coronae regni Bohemiae sub dominio Habsburgensium anno 1526 cecidere ... (ex Cechia)
  • ... Moderni auctores e Bohemo–Moravico territorio qui aliis linguis (v.g. Theodisce) scripsere ... (ex Cechia)
  • ... Primi Europaei coloni Novam Zelandiam in provincias divisere. ... (ex Nova Zelandia)

Sine dubio finale istud in sermone vulgari optimum esset, sed semper credebam encyclopaediae ceciderunt, scripserunt, diviserunt aptius esse. Quid censetis? --Gabriel Svoboda 16:33, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bene inventum et melius dictum, Gabriel. Terminationes illae versibus sunt aptissimae. --Ioscius 16:56, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita. Ceciderunt est forma normalis; cecidere poeticae et archaicae Latinitatis. --Neander 18:20, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Utraque forma recta est. --Martinus567 18:32, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Utra recta, sed illud melior ad prosam scribendam. --Ioscius 18:36, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

erya[fontem recensere]

Scitne quis Sinicum colens ubi invenire possim versionem Anglicam (vel Latinam ;]) dictionarii ac thesauri Sinici erya? Nunc est nexus fractus (ergo citatio quidem falsa) in commentatione nostra de cannabi. --Ioscius 20:05, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apud en:Erya dicitur "Owing to its laconic lexicographical style, the Erya is the only Chinese classic that has not been fully translated into English." Sed, vidisti [9], ubi convenienter potes habere lookups characterum sub textu Sinense? —Mucius Tever 20:40, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very useful site!--Rafaelgarcia 14:05, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that's great. Thanks. --Ioscius 14:10, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

read lock?![fontem recensere]

Scisne tu UV vel quis quare hoc factum sit, me inspicere commentationes hodie nunnullas volente?

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
(inquisitio SQL celata)
from within function "User::clearNotification". Database returned error "1223: Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting read lock (10.0.6.21)".

Confusio mihi maxima... --Ioscius 12:56, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nescio. --UV 23:37, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got the same error once yesterday. IacobusAmor 23:49, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ubi pagina?[fontem recensere]

hesterno die scripsi paginam pertinentem ad Senecae Epistulas morales. Eam servavi nec invenio. Fortasse prius opus est recensione quam pagina legi potest? vobis gratias.

Salve! Commentatio quam incepisti hic est: Epistulae morales ad Lucilium.
Nonne conventum aperire vis apud nos? Vide Vicipaedia:Invitatio. Vale! --UV 08:28, 2 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quod feci, salve! etiam amplificavi paginam "de civitate dei". numquam putassem quod tanta delectatione scribendi fruerer. vale!

Macte!----Jondel 12:28, 2 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Borrar mi cuenta (castellano)[fontem recensere]

Siento que mi nivel de latín no sea bueno, pero he decidido marcharme de wikipedia y ayudar más adelante. ¿Podría algún administrador borrar mi cuenta. Muchas gracias. --Alexmg666 18:05, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola, Alex. Yo borré tu página del usuario, pero no sé como se borran las cuentas. --Ioscius 18:32, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
¿Querrías que borro tu discusión también? --Ioscius 18:35, 3 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Infobox Single[fontem recensere]

Would one of our generous programmers like to set up a Latin version of the English-language infobox for single (musical) recordings? Thousands of songs are begging to use it. I've given translation hints in the code of This Too Shall Pass (carmen). ¶ I'm taking the Latin word for English 'single' here to be singulum, -i, the neuter noun carmen being understood. IacobusAmor 15:04, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave it a try, but there are probably better ways to do it. . . I used your translation hints for the parameters; format (forma?), certification and producer (editor?) are still untranslated and commented out. Feel free to change the names of the parameters and to improve the infobox! --Aylin 21:40, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An excellent start! Now a related article, Of the Blue Colour of the Sky, invites the creation of new formulas, of which the first is closely related to this one: Formula:Infobox album, Formula:Album ratings, Formula:Album ratings prose, Formula:Google books. Thanks! IacobusAmor 15:16, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the second one: Formula:Album, Formula:Album ratings looks complicated to me, because it needs a lot of other formulae to work. . . --Aylin 17:28, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+Formula:Libri Googles --Aylin 18:46, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I now know[fontem recensere]

So someone comes back weeks after the discussion had ended and reimposes the preposterous Fluxio electrica. Why could that be? Well, I have Ioscius's word that you have been talking about me in private, and the only consensus you've reached is that you must hate me.

For the record, it's true (and probably natural enough) that Vicipaedia magistratus exchange emails about current problems. It's true that the name of Pantocrator has figured in these. The only consensus reached (so far as I recall) was that a warning should be given about uncivil tone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
You and I have talked in private, too. I was very generous with offers to help answer any questions you had, and forthright with my requests that you keep your tone a little more civil. My contact dates to two days before my question on your talk post asking whether you got my mail. I don't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't hate you.

Ioscius has betrayed me, I know that for sure, and I'm sure he's going to try to get me kicked off the internet after this. I was composing a reply to his silly warning on my talk page but that's no longer relevant. Perhaps that 'anonymous' user (and supposedly 'highly respected' though I have no way of knowing with someone that always changes IPs) that I allegely insulted (of course he started it!) is the instigator here.

Oh come off it. Betrayed is a big word and the internet is a big place. I don't want you kicked off of anything.
You can tell a user's history by clicking "conlationes usoris" on his talk page.
Although we must stay polite, I agree with Pantocrator that we can't be specially protective of users who write from anonymous IPs. They take the risk that we will make false assumptions about their identities and skills. They can avoid the risk by logging in or by manually signing a username. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
And I have to add that one or two of the IPs were very pointed and not too polite in their comments. The debate descended well below our usual level. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

But what I can see is that your decision against my proposed words isn't based on any consistent principle except opposing me. We have to render 'electric flux' as fluxus electricus because of modern languages (despite flying in the face of all the arguments I laid out, and that you never rebutted) and anellus based on a back-formation from Romance but we can't use transmissio for transmission despite there being no good Latin equivalent, not can we have anything better than momentum virium for torque. Why is it that we must borrow from modern languages in the first two cases, but must not in the latter two? Nothing except your principle of getting rid of me.

You've never given a reason for wanting to rely on modern languages for formation other than personal feeling. "I object strongly", "I prefer" things of the sort. No one said we can't use transmissio just that there was no reason to prefer it other than your aesthetic tastes which is certainly a consistent theme. I confess insufficient knowledge of the physics question to contribute.
We must not coin words (no original research: no ringum). We must express what we can in existing Latin words (anellus exists). Where we have no acceptable Latin word, we use a foreign word (so, if anulus and anellus didn't exist, it might have to be ring; but that's hypothetical, because they do exist). Those have to be the principles we work to (and not the ad hominem principle you suggested above!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

I think I'm going to give up on learning Latin. No one worth talking to reads it anyway. Pantocrator 23:14, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I hate to think a little debate and a couple of request about a more civil modus operandi has pushed you away from an interest of yours. Often the people most worth talking to are the ones who entirely disagree with you, as I confess I often have. I have also often stated, in public and private with you and with others, that you obviously know a great deal about a broad range of topics, and that you have made some good points.
The curious thing is that you profess to have a great authority of the Latin language, simultaneously professing very little knowledge of it. How can someone who neither reads nor writes (let alone speaks) imagine to possess an instinct for coining words in a language. I've said before that I don't coin words in languages that aren't my native tongue, but that's not entirely true. I make them up, I just don't write them in an encyclopedia. This has been stressed many times by myself, by Mucius, and by Neander (that I remember), that, as an encyclopedia, we must not coin words, but use words from published ones. We've discussed before as well the difference between translating and coining, and translation questions usually lead to fruitful results. Your tendency is to prefer coining, would you disagree? Then, in coining, you argue with people who know a considerable amount more about Latin than you do (and have as I said above, made some good points here and there).
Here's an example of where coining intuition gets you wrong:
Roma is a feminine noun. It has to be: it agrees with urbs and it's a goddess. So naturally when coining this noun in Slavic, it's going to be feminine (remember wanting to conserve the gender of ring in German?) right? Well, no... it's Rim masculine in most. In Manx it's Yn Raue, however you pronounce that. But it didn't happen in Slavic despite compelling linguistic and cultural reasons exchanged in relatively close cultural proximity.
This one is up your alley, though: blue jeans were a pretty awesome modern American inventionpopularization, right? So they've got to sound like jeans in every language? Well it's true, they do for the most part. But there are the humorous exceptions based on cowboy and Texas. Of course we stick out like a sore thumb with bracae lintea caerulea and I would certainly support a move to bracae Genuenses and they could be referred to as Genuenses after the lemma or something. If you look within the sources, you'd find there is a lot to work with like this. Maybe the reason you don't is that you're more interested in science and math than in Latin and the modern dictionaries you consult don't address that specific area of vocabulary too thoroughly. An understandable complaint, but instead of forcing it, why not try to write about some other stuff?
There's an old saying: "if three people tell you you're drunk, no matter how drunk you feel, you should go lie down." If you really want to learn Latin, you might want to man up a little bit, quit the "woe is me", check your tone, and try learning from the people who know a lot more about Latin than you do, as you see us do all the time between ourselves. I ask Andrew and Iustinus all the time for help, and I look back in wonder learning from Neander Iacobus and Fabullus' corrections to my puerile mistakes. I've said to you in private, and I'll say again, just about anyone here will be more than happy to help you with anything they know how, if you approach the situation politely and beforehand. Going in guns blazing and then arguing your way out is just plain ineffective.
Despite your the complaint here, you have still used the word our in a post exactly one minute before this post, suggesting you might have been working on both posts simultaneously. I sure hope you meant it and that you can dust yourself off and try again. You might be surprised what you can learn.
--Ioscius 00:47, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would move bracae linteae caeruleae (ugh!) myself, but it seems that people will revert anything I do. As for the other post, I had composed it several days before. Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quo usque tandem abutere, Pantocrator, patientia nostra?. Do you really think it was a silly warning to remind you that you should not be rude at people and that there are better ways to ask things? I haven't followed any of the discussions on the new words you proposed, as they are largely not my topic of expertise, but it is all about civility: be nice, polite, reasonable and stick to the rules rather than question every one of them. --Xaverius 23:58, 4 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the last speaker (as they used to say in the Senate).
I only have half a dog in this fight (OK, OK, maybe it isn't a fight). Long debate over terminology bores me. Our colleague Rolandus (seldom visiting us at present) said that Vicipaedia would be a really good encyclopaedia in fifty years (or words to that effect). Fifty years ahead, will it seem sensible to the millions of readers of Vicipaedia that those old pioneers spent days trying to choose between fluxus and fluxio? Let's write some more pages, however brief and unskilled at first, however much others will edit them. That's what wikis are for, and that's the way to learn. That's how I learn, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quamdiu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Longior disputatio inutilis est. Ut credo et ut lego, Pantocrator iam ab Vicipaedia deseruit.--Xaverius 11:11, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of like the debates about terminology. I wrote a little about it on my blog, but in general I like hearing about the thought-processes involved in selecting the right term. But that's just me: Andrew has the right to be bored :) --Robert.Baruch 16:25, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feathers may be ruffling in response to statements like the one above that says "someone" has reimposed something "preposterous," even though the someone in question knows the subject thoroughly, has taught it at the college level for years, and has read books on it in Latin—and therefore is extremely unlikely to be proposing something "preposterous" on it. ¶ I think discussions about terminology can be fun, but they're often a diversion. Sometimes when I use a term that's not in Cassell's or not otherwise common, I mark it with the {{dubsig}} command. Transmissio wouldn't have seemed improbable to me, so if I'd used the word in an article, I might have written transmissio? or hidden a query inside a <!-- . . . --> section in the code. IacobusAmor 18:50, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the discussion about "fluxus" versus "fluxio" both interesting and fruitful. Like in good discussions in general, both principal participants contributed substance, and hopefully came out with more knowledge than they had when it started. (It goes without saying that I learnt a lot from the contributions of both sides.) The only thing that marred it a bit were statements not recognising that the other participant did not understand or were consciously misconstrue the main arguments, like in the following quotes:
"Are you being deliberately obtuse?"
"I can only assume you are being deliberately evasive."
"If my arguments have been changing it is only because I am trying to get a point across that apparently you are unable to grasp, whereas it is entirely evident to me."
I didn't like these personal remarks, not just since they IMHO were both unprovoced and quite wrong, but also since they were made by the more experienced editor, and would tend to convey a false idea about the kind of standard of language we find acceptable. (The user making these remarks was incidently logged out in a couple of instances, but their identity was rather clear from the context and the IP contributions.)
— As for the subject, like in several other issues, I found Pantocrator's arguments more persuasive in the long run. As far as I could judge, they were more concerned with the terms in actual use (now and all the time since the concept in question, electric current, was developed), while the other party more argued about the terminology which would be better from the modern theories of physics point of view. (Incidently, Pantocreator immediately and repeatedly showed that (s)he clearly understood the theoretical issue, but found it irrelevant in view of actual usage, per VP:NF. This is one reason I found the personal remarks supra quite inadequate.)
Now, from exterior support point of view, I think the discussion was fairly undecided. It ended on February 17. On March 4, the article in question was moved; IMHO to an acceptable name (retaining but qualifying the fluxus), although it would be good to show that this "onus" occurs in actual usage. However, the text of the article was also rewritten in the "fluxio" direction, and a new article was added with the old article name, but describing a different concept (electric flux). I do understand that this surprised Pantocrator; I do not at all think it merited the ideas about personal persecution.
The main problem with the changes, as I perceive it, is, that if the term Fluxus electricus in the actual literature has been used in a one-to-one correspondence with the concept electric current (and Pantocreator seemingly did substantiate this claim), then we may well qualify it by the more precise attribute onoris electrici in order to disambiguate or to make the physics concept more clear, but we cannot employ the plain and unadorned title fluxus electricus for a different concept. Indeed, then fluxus electricus ought to redirect to fluxus oneris electrici.
— One final thing I would like to have clarified, is whether or not such editorial issues were discussed elsewhere than in the article talk page between 17/2 and 4/3. That the editing style of the user Pantocrator was discussed by administrators, I unhappily find quite reasonable, for different reasons. This is something Pantocreator (and all us others) will have to live with. On the other hand, consensi about the editing issues should only be formed by public discussions, and I hope and expect that this case was no exception. Georgius B 21:48, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for finally giving a third-party view of this issue. I would have no problem with fluxus electrici being a discretive between fluxus oneris electrici and fluxus campi electrici (and maybe other things, if they come up). Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be late in commenting but Rafael has said it below anyway -- no, we don't discuss editorial issues by email. Consensuses (English plural OK?) on all matters to do with editing and improving the encyclopedia are reached right here and on article talk pages, there's nothing beyond. That's what I love about Wikipedia: you can see the working parts, not just the clock face. I wouldn't want it any different. [signed, Andrew Dalby, who can't find the tilde on this keyboard]
I am not aware that editorial changes recently made were discussed anywhere but here. I don't think every term in this encyclopedia deserves a unending discussion. Plenty of examples have been given of attested physics terms for modern concepts that are simply wrong and should be avoided when speaking precisely in a scientific context about a concept. In particular, I think it is rational to go along with an expert's opinion on a particular term simply because that person knows more than you.
To answer your question about the pages in question above, I am a physicist and as a physicist I can assure you that electric flow and electric current are separate concepts, requiring different terms, epecially in a modern context: I gave plenty of examples of why fluxio is an appropriate term to use. PC's argument to the contrary is very weak consisting of only pointing out an attested use of the term, which I find unconvincing.
Flow and flux mean the same thing in english; one is just more scientific sounding. Moreover, there are many kinds of electric flow, of electric charge of electric field, the displacement current, etc... and the most important of these is the one referred to in english as "electric flux", all the others being an effect which this one causes. The flow of electric charge is an outward manifestation of electric flux in a wire, and for most people it may not be important to distinguish the two, but for a physicist it is.
The arrangement of the pages as I have set them out is best in my opinion as a physicist and based on my knowledge of latin. The term flow of electric charge fluxus oneris electrici is not controverted as a page title, as the participants all acknowledge it describes the basic phenonmenon. The content of the page describes the difference between a current and a flow. Without these distinctions it would be impossible to describe a whole host of physics concepts adequately with clarity. (The present page as well as the original only suggests fluxio electrica as a possible translation for current, which it is demonstrably based on the attested examples I found.)
I apologize if my tone has ever descended to the uncivil. If it has, it has only in reaction to the prodigious filling of the encyclopedia with gibberish, which I view as just another form of vandalism. If someone knows he knows no latin, he could simply suggest changes to lemmas rather than completely marring up perfectly good latin text.
As to the other comments above, they are not deserving of further discussion.--Rafaelgarcia 01:58, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comments about incivility were from another discussion and not related to you. Nevertheless, your referring to my contributions as a form of vandalism is clearly inappropriate, as I am trying to constructively improve the encyclopedia. I know that my Latin is limited and for that reason have not attempted to rewrite any long articles; nonetheless discussions of terminology are perfectly understandable to me.
The 'unending discussion' seems to have been started by you; I didn't expect to have to defend my clear arguments. I have not only one citation for fluxus electricus, but several - and none for fluxio electrica. It is simply not true that 'electric flux' is the most important kind of 'electric flow', but I do not wish to repeat again all my arguments from the other page.
I am not ignorant of the physics involved; but I maintain that physics concepts do not determine language use. We still say 'sunrise' though we know it is the Earth that moves; we still speak of gravity as a force though Einstein told us that the best conception is as curvature of space. Pantocrator 02:53, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I was unfair. I think your efforts have all been well-intentioned.
Fluxio electrica per se is not attested but fluxio is in the sense of current. Perhaps you latin does not yet extend to confidently predict what results when joining two words together, but I assure you the phrase works. On the other hand, I explained before fluxus electricus is utterly ambiguous and at best a discretiva.
You admit that simple attestation is not sufficient if the term is unsuitable in a modern context right? Physics terminology in Romance languages comes from latin: how many use electric flow for current? How many use it for electric flux? Ask yourself why and you may come to understand why I object so strongly. In short you are simply wrong on this point.--Rafaelgarcia 04:04, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly do know what happend if you join a noun and adjective together, in any language. Fluxio in a physics context means fluxion (derivative), period. You have done nothing to convince me otherwise.
Some terms are unsuitable, like using vis to mean energy or acceleration, but fluxus meaning current is no such thing; it is a most natural translation. And once again you assert that usage in the Romance languages (which are, after all, only barbarous forms of Latin) should determine our usage in proper Latin. Pantocrator 23:35, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example that you do not know what you are talking about. Derivative in latin is Derivativum. Fluxion is fluxio, which means either rate of flow literally or derivative with respect to time in mathematics.--Rafaelgarcia 00:17, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked you repeatedly to provide any cite for fluxio meaning specifically 'rate of flow'. You have not been able to.
I trust Isaac Newton here. Also, the use of derivativum as the regular term for derivative is modern; the infinitesimal school originally talked only in terms of differentialia (differentials) and dy/dx was regularly called 'differential coefficient' in English. Pantocrator 01:17, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I can say is that I stand agast. Please read the passages of Newton that you yourself have refered to concerning fluxio. Please read it in latin.--Rafaelgarcia 01:27, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have gone through it. How you can assert that celeritas must mean 'rate of flow' is beyond me; in physics, it normally means speed/velocity. Pantocrator 01:42, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is what Newton said about Fluxions: "35. Therefore considering that quantities, which increase in equal times, and by increasing are generated, become greater or less according to the greater or less velocity with which they increase and are generated; I sought a method of determining quantities from the velocities of the motions or increments with which they are generated; and calling these velocities of the motions or increments Fluxions, and the generated quantities Fluents, I fell by degrees upon the Method of Fluxions, which I have made use of here in the Quadrature of Curves in the years 1665 and 1666." (translation by John Stewart), in A History of the Conceptions of Limits and Fluxions in Great Britain (Florian Cajori), 1919, p.21. --Robert.Baruch 14:53, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I call a truce, and I'll cease my Ciceronian speech. I do not know about fluxus or fluxio or electricity, nor did I read those disputationes, and I consciously kept away from them. I do not know who began the rudeness there, and this thread was not meant to discuss it, but I've seen other comments and edits of yours. Pantocrator, you made good comments on some things, and good contributions (especially on the consistency of chemical elements and the sort). However, we just wanted to remind you to be polite and mind your language when raising an argument. That is all. You seem to elude this issue which is the one and only reason for your warning. If you understand and accept it, then there shall be no more problems, I guess. If not, we would be arguing ad absurdum without reaching any solution.--Xaverius 13:17, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."--Ayn Rand--Rafaelgarcia 18:40, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quaestio, quae Vicipaediam utendum pertinet[fontem recensere]

Quomodo notas facere ad emendandum possum, ut in disputationibus notas emendationis siti sint? Gratias ,cui me auxilium agere potest, ago permaximas!--Martinus567 17:48, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forsan scire vis quomodo signum dubii (?) imponere? Quod signum, cum impositum sit, est etiam nexus ad paginam disputationis illius rei. Hoc signum fere est ?, et ad imponendum imprimere debes {{dubsig}}. At si hoc non est quod quaeris, iterum pete libere!--Poecus 21:29, 5 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non modo, sed gratias nuntio ago. Si emendavi quamdam rem, idest textum mutato, volo notas facere, ut creator sciat, qua de causa rem eius mutaverem. Hoc solet esse, si intro eg. [10], video notas. quomodo hoc agere possum?--Martinus567 13:34, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dicis notas quae sunt in Historia cuiusdam paginae, post indicationem temporis emendationis? Si has imponere vis, inscribe notam in Summarium, id est capsula quam invenire potes in pagina recensionis, super servare hanc rem--Poecus 14:30, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poece, gratias ago permaximas, hoc erat meum problema. Vale--Martinus567 17:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ignosce mihi vocativo, pot. Poecu! --Martinus567 19:11, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noli veniam petere, amice: etenim ipse ego finxi nomen Poecus, nec quidem posco ut statim id omnes agnoscant. Tamen, primus tu nominis rectam flectionem curavisti, igitur gratulor atque gaudeo. Cura ut valeas!--Poecus 20:33, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula "Commune Austriae"[fontem recensere]

Situm Lentiae amplificavi formulam, quam ex situ Salisburgi duplicavi, addens: Non omnia hac in formula mihi placent, sed nescio, ubi hanc formulam inveniam et quomodo mutem. Imprimis sunt duae res mutandae: Spissitudo (indicat 2 loco 1970) et terra foederalis (quae notione civitatis - ut in formula Austria - supplenda est).--Utilo 13:57, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide Formula:Commune Austriae (Germanice) --Alex1011 15:17, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to have fixed the spissitudo. . . --Aylin 15:27, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
magnas gratias ago!--Utilo 17:14, 6 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formulam Commune Austriae (Germanice) amplificavi (Gemeinderat), ut membra consilii sive distributionem sedium addere possem, sed in situ Lentiae tantum prima pars lineae apparet. Quid falsi feci?--Utilo 01:16, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distributio sedium nunc apparet: [11] [12]
Ich versuche es mal auf Deutsch zu erklären, ich habe
{{#if: {{{Gemeinderat}}}|Membra consilii|}}: || {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}
zu
{{#if: {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}|Membra consilii|}}: || {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}
geändert, da {{#if: {{{Mitglieder des Gemeinderats}}}|Membra consilii|}} bewirkt, dass die Zeile "Membri consilii" in der Infobox nur dann angezeigt wird, wenn in einem Artikel "Mitglieder des Gemeinderates=" ausgefüllt ist, sonst entfällt die gesamte Zeile. Bei deiner Version wurde zwar der linke Teil der Zeile in Lentia angezeigt, weil dort "Gemeinderat=" ausgefüllt war, der rechte Teil der Zeile jedoch nicht, da für den Inhalt, der dort hätte angezeigt werden sollen, "Mitglieder des Gemeinderates=" zuständig gewesen wäre. --Aylin 12:11, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke, ich glaube, ich hab' es verstanden!--Utilo 13:22, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Anonymous[fontem recensere]

Are we OK with using anonymus, -a, -um for anonymous (adj or subst)? I've seen it in several articles. On that subject, what would work for anonymously (I am writing anonymously) and anonymity (I am obtaining anonymity)? I've been using sine nomine for anonymously. Similar questions for pseudonym, pseudonymity, pseudonymous, pseudonymously. --Robert.Baruch 01:24, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Good ol' Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis has anonymity as voluntas nominis reticendi, or propositum libri (scripti) sine nomine vulgandi; propositum nomen non profiendi. Also, falsum/artificialis nomen; falso/artificiali nomine editus for pseudonym, and falsi nominis assumptio; artificialis nominis usurpatio for pseudonymity. --Robert.Baruch 01:33, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This anonymus isn't in Cassell's, so it's apparently not classical; its (Greek) elements should have been intelligible as 'nameless', and that's sine nomine, but the English word anonymous often means something more like 'name unknown'—which isn't the same thing. Many anonymous authors most certainly do have names. IacobusAmor 13:04, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quomodo dicitur Alien latine?[fontem recensere]

Creo paginas seriei Halo sed mythistoria haec seriei habet "Aliens" (Creaturae non Terrae). Quomodo dicitur hae res? Si non intellegavisti sententiam meam, dico "Aliens" esse creaturae in aliis planetiis oriuntur. 208.103.66.69 03:03, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortasse Alienus, -i (Anglice: alien one, foreigner)? Fortasse plus definite: Extraterrenus, -i (Anglice: beyond-earthly one)? --Robert.Baruch 03:26, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita in pagina Halo (series) scripsi Alienorum quia olim vidi hunc verbum... Sed nescivi si latinitatis erat. 208.103.66.69 03:36, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latine pura, secundum Cassell's, nomen substantivum Anglicum 'alien' est peregrinus, advena, et alienigena, et nomen Latinum alienus est 'a stranger'. Primus nominis adiectivi alieni sensus est 'that which belongs or relates to another'; ergo, alienum, -i, 'another man's property'. IacobusAmor 13:19, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extratelluricus aut extraterrestris bona verba sunt (ut credo), sed "alienus" simpliciter est "peregrinus".--Xaverius 13:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're seeking a classical Latin term for alien, extraneus would be a candidate. By the way, please, don't inflect "Xbox" (&c) as "Xbogis" &c. Product names are best treated as indeclinables. --Neander 13:50, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ne fingamus, melius puto esse extraneus, ut substantivum. Sed extraneus tantum significat 'extraneous, strange, foreign', et verbum substantivum hoc potest obscurum esse. Fortasse oportet addere adiectivum, scilicet extraneus sidereus?--Poecus 14:41, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credo 'alienigena' vel 'extratelluricus' optima esse. Alienigena alias significationes potest significare sed 'Extratelluricus'... Nescio si latinitatis est. Non quaero verbum rerum classicarum, si sunt verba moderna aut medioaevi quae ligari possunt... Nescio... Nescio... Sed definitate credo 'Alienigena' vel 'Extratelluricus' esse candidatae optimae nostrae. Astronavium 16:38, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In ipso vocabulo Anglico alien per se nihil est quod ad extraterrestrialitatem vel sim. pertineat. Quae umbra significationis e contextu (id est: a fabula) concluditur. Sine dubio etiam alienigena vel extraneus eandem significationem contextualem accipiat, si altero utro vocabulo in fabulá describendá utaris. (Sed "extratelluricus" magis interpretiva est quam "alien".) --Neander 17:13, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Breviter, dicis me 'alienigena' vel 'extraneus' verba meliora esse quam 'alienus'? Si est, possum mutare haec verba in paginis. (Foedus Alienigenarum nominatur Covenant???) Astronavium 17:27, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forsitan alienigena optima electio sit. Si recte memini, de vocabulo "covenant" alicubi aliquando disputavimus. "Foedus alienigenarum" mihi quidem satis placet, sed sunt etiam alia vocabula, quae 'covenant' significant, sicut conventio, pactio, pactum. --Neander 18:00, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bene. Mutavi hae verba in paginis. Astronavium 19:20, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astrobatalarium[fontem recensere]

Alia res, in pagina, parte Mythistoria Ipsa scripsi "astrobatalariam" quae est 'Astronavis bellica'. Hoc modo scripsi quia dicitur Astronavis ac Batalaria subaquanea. Batalaria est navis bellica... Cogito 'Astrobatalaria' melior esse quam 'Navis Bellica' sed verbum novum est. Scio legem 'Noli Fingere' sed est sententia novissima. Quid cogitas? 208.103.66.69 03:36, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Habemus fontem huius nominis arcani, batalariae? IacobusAmor 13:13, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
batalaria et alibi.--24.107.235.195 14:06, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suntne problemata si creo paginam 'Astrobatalaria'? Astronavium 16:50, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credo melius esse astronavis bellica ut non fingatur; sed sensus eius mihi clarus fuerit.--130.215.96.89 18:29, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nova categoria technologiis humanis spatii cosmici[fontem recensere]

Creavi paginam Statio spatialis atque Satelles artificialis et sunt paginae de Astronavibus atque Astronautis sed non est categoria pro his rebus praeter . Quid cogitatis? 208.103.66.69 05:12, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spatialis and artificialis seem not be classical terms. 'Artificial' is artificiosus. IacobusAmor 13:06, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I basically agree with you, we have for best or worst Intellegentia artificialis. --Neander 14:38, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the fault of me, a person of doubtful Latinity. Please change it if it must be changed. --Robert.Baruch 15:49, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artificialis classicum non est neque haec sententia rerum mundi classici est. Utimur verba neoclassica atque moderna, quia non artificialis?. Mihi opinor nonnullae res difficillimae sunt explicari si utimur sola verba classica. Pro revento ad rem tituli.... Habetisne sententiam huius novae categoriae? Categoria Res Artificiales Spatialis? potest esse? Astronavium 16:47, 7 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Olim ut te credebam artificialis melius fuisset sed hodie post quam plus legissem credo Iacobum et Neandrem recte dicere. Latine melius Intelligentia artificiosa: quia artificiosus est adiectivum saepius adhibitum opponendi causa adiectivum naturalis. --130.215.96.89 16:12, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eheu... Bene. Mihi placet artificiosus tam quam artificialis. Astronavium 19:56, 8 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conventiculum II[fontem recensere]

Adhuc sumus septem. --Alex1011 21:07, 13 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisio vobis petitur[fontem recensere]

Vobis peto revisionem sequentis rei: Primera fila. Gratias vobis ago. --El Mexicano 10:19, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tres parvula emendavi. (Ceterum Latinitas plena pompae est) :) --Martinus567 16:12, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aradia / Aradinum[fontem recensere]

Could someone, please, move "Aradia" to "Aradinum" (which is the testified latin name)? Thank you--Utilo 15:28, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you have given an attestation, but Aradia is also attested, and it seems unclear which version is commoner. By all means add another source or two ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no source cited, so I looked up the "Repertorium" - but I don't know, which name is commoner. The Hungarian Wikipedia has "Aradinum", but without source.--Utilo 17:15, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It often happens like this: someone finds a source, and then someone else looks for another! I have no objection to moving the page if the name "Aradinum" is preferable. In fact, you can move it yourself, using the "Movere" tab at the top of the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just made a redirection from "Aradinum" to "Aradia" ... (at least till the thing is clear)--Utilo 18:30, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I am very glad you are making some new pages for cities in Transylvania. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:51, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aradinum est nomen rectum, si nomen Latinum videmus: Vide: Budapest -> Budapestinum; Szeged -> Szegedinum (antiquum nomen: Partiscum), Sopron -> Soproninum (nomen antiquum: Scarbantia) Te recte dicere puto.
A quick look into google provides a lot of supporting hits for „Aradinum“: The Hungarian Wikipedia: [13], Familienbuch – Sellesch – Sippenbuch: [14], Allgemeiner Ortsregister [15], Das Königreich Ungarn: ein topographisch-historisch-statistisches Rundgemälde, 1833 [16], Repertorium locorum obiectorumque, 1808 [17]--Utilo 23:00, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I`ve just move Aradia to Aradinum--Utilo 23:22, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. The name seems well-supported. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

domus elixaturae[fontem recensere]

Does by chance someone know a Latin word equivalent to German "Sudhaus" - not for brewing beer (which would be a brewhouse / braxatorium), but for extracting salt by heat. "Sud" seems to be derived from "Sieden", which ist elixare / elixatura.--Utilo 16:00, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what about "domus (sive aedificum) salis elixandi" vel "domus salis coquendi"?--Utilo 21:35, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think those would work. I don't know any mot juste. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse de salina loquimini? --Vermondo 11:40, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De parte salinae (montanae) loquimur, sc. de aedificio, in quo calore sal ex aqua sale saturata obtinetur.--Utilo 11:59, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Praenomina hominum[fontem recensere]

Standard forms of Christian names used to exist in English until recently and ought to exist in Latin. I have found that there are many exceptions around here, most of which are probably not justified and ought to be corrected.

I have written an index of standard Latin names, which should be used in the absence of an authoritative Latin citation. In this list I endeavored to give all names I know that have a standard Latin form, have been used in modern Western Europe, and that have a vernacular form not identical to the Latin. The vernacular equivalents are not given and should not be needed (although if someone wanted to add some, that's fine). Note that I did NOT copy from any of the list of 'Latin names' around the Web, which are infested with dubious forms and typos.

I would of course welcome anyone else's contributions, but I know enough of this place to know that there is zero chance of me getting any help. Pantocrator 17:11, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought we talked about canning the "woe is me" attitude? With that "I know enough of this place to know that there is zero chance of me getting any help" you really shouldn't act surprised when people don't want to help you. You should however be grateful that people still in fact do help you quite regularly despite your sulky angsty rhetoric.--Ioscius 09:54, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to both: this is looking too personal for the Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks a handy list, and pretty accurate (no doubt there are some other names that could be added). I added a couple I thought of (Aegidius = Giles, Remigius = Rémy) and changed u > v in one or two places: I wouldn't have done this on one of your userspace pages without your invitation above! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Giles' is different enough that it probably needs to be mentioned, as I did with 'Denis'. I am going to start moving nonstandard forms, unless there is a citation of that Latin form. Pantocrator 01:23, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reminder: As I noted below, it is a bit hard to find the actually approved or suggested editing guidelines. I did incidently find the following list: Usor:Gualterius de Reptilibus/Index nominum Latine redditorum, which indeed once was "approved" (i.e., I found it by means of a link from Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis). The "Index nominum..." also refer to a list, Index praenominum, which is pretty similar to the "praenomina latina" supra, I think. IMHO, these lists also should be consulted. (Sometimes, the major trouble might be, not the absence of good guides, but the ignorance of where and how to use them.)
Thanks. I've added to my list those names from there that seem to definitely meet my guidelines. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also: Usor:Hellerick/Translatio praenominum Russicorum. --Gabriel Svoboda 07:42, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A major point: How do we make editors aware of the lists (whether the old ones and/or the new one, or merged variants)? Georgius B 01:55, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My list vs. the other one[fontem recensere]

I would object to any solution incorporating that list whole as I would to the same with any list found on the Internet: each entry has not been verified, and they need not be consistent with each other. Further the list may have (does have) more variants than necessary, including surnames, obsolete names, and short forms (nicknames).

My list has only one entry for each Latin name for the purpose of standardisation and maintainability. It is not intended to ever be a complete list of the names we should Latinise, but only to cover those with a single standard form for (possibly) multiple vernacular variants. It is free of typos and forms of dubious provenance. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked histories and talk sides briefly.
The Praenomen list seems to be a common wikipedian effort; amended by various people over a couple of years. It is not just "any list found on the Internet"; it's the way we do things in wikis.
On the other hand, the Index nominum Latine redditorum seems to be much more the work of one person, and is criticised for this at its talk page. Actually, the page seemingly was moved last December as a consequence of the criticism; but the reference to it from the guidelines was kept. That may have been an oversight.
I recommend asking Andrew Dalby about this. He was involved with these lists, both in editing and in moving (and has already involved himself a bit with yours); probably he should be an adequate judge, or at least be able to explain the stati of the various lists.
(He also will complain over my plural of "status", I fear:-). If he continues with that, I may have to change a few bad habits of mine.) Georgius B 03:28, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Complain? Moi? I have commented briefly below :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I didn't see that other list yet, sorry. Yes, it looks quite similar to mine (and I added a few more from it). Yes, that list we should be able to work with - none of the moves I've made so far contradict it (except the obvious error Taddeus for Thaddaeus). Pantocrator 04:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm done moving for tonight. Please don't revert any without good reason. I deliberately did not move any with a citation of the non-standard form, though I think that probably many of those should be moved as well - modernising the spelling of names can be done in any language, and so I don't think it unreasonable to 'fix' non-standard mediaeval spellings of names just as we would fix the spelling of any common word. And what about her? One would almost have to call that coin an error. Pantocrator 04:40, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you have demonstrated in the past to have poor judgment in such matters you really should always check with others before you engage in such wholesale moving. In particular, "modernizing" the spelling of names is inappropriate, because the modernized version would be a *different* name from the original.
If you want to mention what the modern name is, then ", qui etiam hodie XX dici potest," would be a possible phrase to add with the suggested modernization being XX. To do otherwise is to be making things up rather than living up to the standards of an encyclopedia.
With any name you should first try some days to find the original spelling that they preferred (which in fact tells you the sound) of their actual latin name.--24.107.235.195 13:14, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is excellent advice, but, luckily, nearly all the moves made this morning appear to me to have been OK. I just moved Mirabeau back, however (to the tune of 'Sous le pont Mirabeau coule la Seine, et nos amours ... I don't remember any more) because the French -é is likely to -- and in this case definitely does -- represent a Latin -ātus. Honoré could not derive from "Honorius": the stress is on the wrong syllable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we have Honorius de Balzac with the same French name. I merely applied analogy knowing that Honorius was a standard form. Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my talk page for the conclusion to this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two sets of names are in play here: one involves people who use or used Latin, and one involves people who don't or didn't. Vicipaedia has to respect whatever names the members of the former set applied to themselves, but may freely deploy standardized Latin forms for the names of members of the latter set. IacobusAmor 13:33, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. In the latter case, it's just a question of our agreeing what our standard forms are. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Points of dispute[fontem recensere]

Eleanor[fontem recensere]

Eleanor - what's the standard Latinisation here? I haven't added it to my list, even though it is common, because I have seen several different forms. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name was, according to the historical record, invented by the father of Eleanor of Aquitaine. The Latin form used at that time was Alienora. But our problem always is that later people with the same name have adopted variant Latinisations! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oscar[fontem recensere]

Oscar - Do we really have to Latinise this Anscharius? It has the form Oscar in all the modern languages, after all. Similarly the Latinisation of Kevin seems dubious to me.
I'll add these to my list if we have agreement on them. Pantocrator 02:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've a memory of having seen the form Oscarus used for one or the other of the Swedish 19'th century kings Oscar. I'll check the church inscription next time I pass it. Anyhow, this is of course rather modern, but probably would cause much less confusion than naming them Anscharius. Besides, I know of other cases where cognate names are rendered differently depending on how ancient they are: The French kings "Louis" are named Ludvig in Swedish history books, except the first and ancient king called Klotvig. Even if differentiating Anscharius from Oscarus should turn out to be in best accordance with "least confusion", I'm not completely happy about this; we should at least give cross-references to the cognates, if we use both forms, I think. Georgius B 03:01, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Swedish coins they seem to have dropped Latin in 1792. Linnaeus would have turned in his grave. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coemgenus is well attested. --Ioscius 09:26, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
I know it's attested but it seems awful to use it. For both 'Oscar' and 'Kevin', there's only one vernacular version of the name used today, and it's very different from the Latin form. Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To find standard Latin forms I suggest (also) to use the various versions of the „Martyrologium Romanum“. Anscharius (episcopus Bremensis) e.g. you’ll find on the 3rd of February in the Martyrologium Romanum - edition 1597 [18]. and in the edition of 1749 (lat-engl) [19]. Unfortunately there is no Oscar, because the name was popularized in Europe only in the 18th century by the works of the Scottish poet James Macpherson.--Utilo 11:42, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, it seems, 'Oscar' can indeed be regarded as an independent name, if that was its origin (as opposed to derivation from the Saint). Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find a Saint Oscar (or Sanctus Oscarus); more informations about the name here: [20]; in library-catalogs there is the form Oscarus for the Swedish king(s): [21], and also in the following genealogical database: [22]--Utilo 16:44, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once more Oscar / Anscharius: At the moment Oscar is redirected to Anscharius, the Swedish kings are called Anscharius I etc. The German "Lexikon der Vornamen" (Duden 1974) states that Oscar and Ansgar are two different names (Oscar Celtic, Ansgar Germanic), the site "Behind the name" [23] writes it "possibly means "deer lover", derived from Gaelic os "deer" and cara "lover", all Wikipedia-sites of "Oscar" resp. "Ansgar" take it for granted, that Ansgar (Asgeir) is (only) the Old Norse variant of Old English Oscar (Osgar). Who is right? An what to do: Only Anscharius or Anscharius and Oscar(us)?--Utilo 22:52, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's true, there's no authority to render 'Oscar' Anscharius, is there? So we would better use some form of Oscar instead. Pantocrator 00:25, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The English, Italian and German Wikipedia-pages of Ansgar/Oscar are of no help (because they give no reliable authority), the authors of the Norvegian, Swedish and Hungarian sites on the other hand seem to have done some extra work: All three of them point to standard namebooks in their languages (let`s hope, they have looked into them), all three state that Oscar and Ansgar are basically only one name (two variants in diffent Germanic languages). As long as their is no other evidence I'd prefer to make no changes at all ...--Utilo 15:54, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've at last been around to the church in question (situated here in Stockholm). Here is the inscription:

IN GLORIAM OMNIPOTENTIS DEI
HOC TEMPLUM
NOMINE GUSTAVI VASA APPELLATUM
REGNANTE TRICESIUM QUARTUM ANNUM
OSCARE II
INAUGURATUM EST A:D:MCMVI

(Oscar II at that time was the king of Sweden - only that, to his chargrin, since Norway broke away from the union in 1905.) I'd believe that Oscare would be considered as a case form of "Oscarus"; but, of course, a nominative would have been nicer. Besides, I do not understand the -e; this is hardly a vocative. (I'll check the text again, when I get the chance.) Georgius B 14:49, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding the source in natura! Grammatically speaking, Oscare - apart from vocative of Oscarus - may be either genitive/dative of Oscara, -ae, m. (i. e. Oscarae in proper spelling, but a simplification to Oscare was possible), or ablative of a third declension noun with genitive Oscaris and unknown nominative (probably Oscar, as per [24]). Looking at the context, the latter is more likely, since there is an ablative absolute REGNANTE OSCARE. --Gabriel Svoboda 15:16, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would imagine the ablative here, supporting Oscar, Oscaris. Hoc templum ... Oscare inauguratum est. --Ioscius 15:19, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, that inscription attests the use of templum for 'church (building)' in preference to ecclesia (which may more closely translate 'church (organization, assembly)'). IacobusAmor 17:36, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't limit ecclesia to church (organizaton, assembly), look at Ecclesia: Ecclesiae nomine intellegitur aedes sacra divino cultui destinata, ad quam fidelibus ius est adeundi ad divinum cultum praesertim publice exercendum (Can. 1214). It would be easy to find thousands of attestations, where ecclesia means church-building.--Utilo 18:05, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure you can't limit it, but you can exploit the distinction for purposes of clarity, yeah? --Ioscius 18:17, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A distinction is observed in Wikipedia, where church is an article that starts <<Christian Church and church . . . are used to denote both a Christian association of people and a place of worship>>, and clicking on the link takes you to Church (building). IacobusAmor 19:12, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we change then to Oscar, -is? If that's the only form actually attested in good Latin for the modern name 'Oscar' it would seem to have authority, and it doesn't seem that any connection between 'Oscar' and Anscharius has been proven. Pantocrator 22:32, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have guessed this to be the third declination rather than the second... . I passed the church again yesterday; it was indeed OSCARE.
The reference to Ossian's songs supra seems higly relevant. I looked in Nordisk Familjebok, the edition from the 19'th century, and, according to this encyclopaedia, indeed the first Scandinavian king Oscar was named after the Ossianic hero; see this. (The text claims that actually Napoleon chose that name.)
That old encyclopaedia does not give an etymology. The modern one, Nationalencyclopedin, does; and derives it from Irish (Gaelic), without any mention of Ansgar. I suspect that the connection with Ansgar is deprecated by modern linguists.
The church inscription is not that important; but it does conform to the "Oscar, -is" in the translation of Ossian's songs; vide supra. This appears to be a good choice.
I checked the svwiki article sv:Oskar (namn) and its sources. The source indeed is reliable (Hellquist's etymological dictionary), and correctly quoted. This derives Oscar from Irish, but goes on to claim that the Irish in their turn borrowed the name from a North Germanic Ásgeirr, which indeed is cognate to Ansgar. This may or may not be a modern view (the etymologies in Hellquist now and then are revised by modern research); I think that I'll give the os+cara as an alternative in the svwiki article; but it is probably not very relevant. Even if true, it would mean that there is no continuous historical connection between Ansgar and Oscar in the Latin-speaking world; whence this de facto is two names, for our purposes. IMHO, the suggested connection with Ansgarius certainly is worth to mention; and if anyone outside wikipedia has applied the suggested etymology in translating "Oscar" to "Ansgarius", this certainly should be mentioned at the appropriate article; but we have no reason to make this substitution on our own initiative. Georgius B 20:58, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One might question certainly our Latinisation if it's necessary to look that deeply for the etymology! So that is where Anscharius comes from - a mediaeval spelling of course, it would probably be Ansgar(i)us today. Pantocrator 04:40, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthaeus/Matthias[fontem recensere]

Doublets: (I hoped there could be a single form for each name, but ...):
Matthaeus/Matthias - It appears these forms both have a long history, but the Bible has the former which is the preference of our page and my list. Therefore, I moved Matt Damon (the only ambiguous case we have) from Matthias to Matthaeus. Pantocrator 04:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are two distinct names, from two different disciples. [Scripsit 82.36.89.155, usor sine nomine.]
I don't think so. There's only one Matthew in the bible, as far as I know. Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rem acu tetigisti! They are Sanctus Matthaeus, one of the original disciples, and Sanctus Matthias, chosen later instead of Judas. Don't know why it hasn't come to my mind earlier. --Gabriel Svoboda 15:12, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes (the latter is not a major figure). They are etymologically the same name, though. Pantocrator 15:21, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you may be wrong even there (but I am morally certain someone else will come along who knows for certain). Meanwhile, it's handy to know that one is the patron of accountants, and the other of alcoholics (according to en:wiki). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:34, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the interwiki links: Bulgarian Матей vs. Матий, Catalan Mateu vs. Maties, Czech Matouš vs. Matěj, German Matthäus vs. Matthias, Greek Ματθαίος vs. Ματθίας, English Matthew vs. Matthias, Esperanto Mateo vs. Matiaso, Spanish Mateo vs. Matías, Finnish Matteus vs. Mattias, French Matthieu vs. Matthias, Italian Matteo vs. Mattia, Latin Matthaeus vs. Matthias, Dutch Matteüs vs. Mattias, Polish Mateusz vs. Maciej, Portuguese Mateus vs. Matias, Romanian Matei vs. Matia, Russian Матфей vs. Матфий, Slovenian Matej vs. Matija, Serbian Матеј vs. Матија, Swedish Matteus vs. Mattias, Swahili Mathayo vs. Mathia, Tagalog Mateo vs. Matias, Ukrainian Матвій vs. Маттій. --Gabriel Svoboda 15:39, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Samoan: Mataio vs. Matatia. IacobusAmor 16:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in English that would be Matthew vs. Matthias, though the latter is not a standard name. I've created as a supplement Matthaeus aut Matthias - sorry I can't transcribe the Cyrillic (can anyone add them?), but I got the important western languages.Pantocrator 15:45, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mathias Kiwanuka will be so so disappointed to know that his name is not a "standard" one. IacobusAmor 16:49, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's all we can do. You are right that both forms have a long history. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matthaeus/Matthias derive from the same Hebrew form מַתִּתְיָהוּ (Mattityahu) meaning "gift of YAHWEH", that's right. But so do other biblical names: Mattatthias, Mattithja and (from a similar form with the same meaning:) Mattan, Mattana, Matthanja, Mattata, Mattathan, Mattenai, Mathan, Matthat, Matthnai (cf. Die Namen der Bibel, Heilbronn, 1975 / 5. ed.). Nonetheless these are distinct names resp. persons.--Utilo 17:06, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victor/Victorius[fontem recensere]

I believe Victorius is the original and Victor just a worn-down form that may have been re-imported into Latin. I would not be opposed, therefore, to using Victorius for all modern figures (are there any unambiguously requiring Victor)? Pantocrator 04:46, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be interesting to know the thought-processes that lie behind your belief. What are the reasons you believe that? IacobusAmor 12:35, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Victorius would normally become 'Victor' in French, from where other languages could have borrowed it. But apparently it does have an indepedent history. Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually Victorius would normally become Victoir in French, and there is indeed a Saint-Victoir abbey or something in Marseille. Whether there is any modern Frenchman called Victoir I don't know. I never met one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather believe that victor is the older form (even as a name). As a by-name, it should be at least as old as the oldest Roman conquests... and my small dictionary doesn't even contain the adjective "victorius" in Latin. It renders the Englisf "victorius" with "superior", but continues by marking that the (noun) forms victor (m) and victrix (f) may be used, to translate Eng. "victorius" into Latin. However, let's see what the true experts say.
Good night. Georgius B 07:16, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to Victor, there is an early medieval author en:Victor Vitensis: his is a real (late) Latin name, so it passes the usual test. As to Victorius, it is attested in Latin on the coins of recent Italian monarchs (see Disputatio:Victorius Emmanuel II (rex Italiae)).
By normal linguistic changes, "Victor -orem" would give Vittore in Italian, while "Victorius -um" would give Vittorio. It seems both Italian names exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia, at least twenty-four French communes are named for Saint Victor, and several saints of this name seem to have existed. IacobusAmor 13:23, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth[fontem recensere]

Elizabeth - I preferred the form with 'z' and moved pages accordingly, but that might not be on solid ground as it appears 's' is older and 'z' forms originate only in English and Slavic. I also lemmatized (following what I'd found) the indeclined form, but I didn't change any pages from one to the other. Are there any Latin sources bearing on the question (There were, before my edits, two pages on the name, Elisabeth and Elisabetha, both with no sources.)

"Elisabeth" is the oldest Latin form, found in the Vulgate Bible (Luke 1.5 etc.) but is inconvenient because undeclinable. "Elisabetha" with "s" is closer to this early Latin form, also closer to the majority of modern languages; therefore, wherever we standardise, I think we should choose the form with "s". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the declinable form also, though I in fact didn't change any that way. It seems we have the indeclinable mostly for the queens of England; and even if they do use Elizabeth officially, that shouldn't determine our usage. Almost all commonly used Christian names have declinable forms and this shouldn't be an exception.
As for 's' vs. 'z', I think you're right. The z form is likely only found in English documents, though admittedly the name is more popular in English than anywhere else. The etymology does support 's'; so should we at least change all non-English people to Elisabetha? Pantocrator 02:01, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you except on the question of spellings chosen by the subjects themselves (e.g. the Queens of England, the spellings on their coins). We have followed authority in those cases and I feel we still should, though I can see arguments on both sides ... In all other cases, I would certainly standardise on "Elisabetha". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should not Elsa also be converted to Elisabetha, given that we do not use short forms (nicknames) in titles? Pantocrator
In practice, I found, it's an independent name. Certainly not normally a nickname. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
How do we decide what's an independent name? Look at what Wikipedia lists; surely we can't have all those different forms! I commented below that Isabella surely is separate, and we have Elisa, Lisa, Elsa - is that all? Is Ilsa the same as Elsa? And what's the standard that says those variations are to be admitted but not those with a medial 'z' in English and Slavic? Pantocrator 22:47, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know of no relevant standard. We're called on to use intelligence, research and good judgment. Let's hope we have enough of those commodities to be getting on with.
Keep in mind that uniformity is perfectly useless in itself: the only benefits of uniformity come if it helps us work better or more quickly and if it eventually helps the people who read us. If it bogs us down in many long arguments it isn't helping. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My judgement is to put all forms (except those corresponding to Isabella) at Elisabetha. Obviously yours is different but you haven't specified exactly how.
The benefit of uniformity on these grounds is that: it looks more professional in Latin, it will avoid any _future_ arguments about naming, it will enable people to be sure of what name we will use (and that we won't move it again) and thereby look it up under that name. Pantocrator 03:35, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes: I agree fully. (Except that, on a wiki, nothing will avoid future arguments!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point about nicknames is that forms that some people may use as a nickname (i.e. not their given name) may be legal names of other people, and it seems we should probably treat the two as the same. For example, with this name, we have Elisabetha Henrietta Hyman - was 'Libbie' her given name? - and should it matter? Also, we have Elizabeth Aigner, which someone else moved from Ilse, her given name. By your standards, that should be moved to Ilsa, right? (Or Elsa?) Pantocrator 23:30, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By my standards, we should look on all sides and judge the evidence as well as we can before we make a move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something must be done with Elizabeth Aigner, we've decided the spelling it's at now is not acceptable. My point is that it's cumbersome and not always practical to find someone's legal given name, so it would be preferable to have a standard for Latinising that does not require it generally. Pantocrator 03:35, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be, but we can't ignore what people themselves think are their "real names". My reasoning for Elsa is this. Its origin is not totally certain. Even if it did originate (with Elsa Beata Bunge or her parents, or some other more obscure people) as a pure variant on Elisabeth, it became more than that when Wagner used it as the name of a medieval heroine. From that point on, it was popular as a name choice and was no longer connected with Elisabeth. It's a similar story to Matthaeus/Matthias, connected in origin, but different by history. We have to be aware of such cases, nuisance though they are: if we change them to what we believe is the same etymologically, we are just causing confusion.
That's exactly what we have done with Oscar and Kevin, as I've been saying! Why must we be inconsistent?
For the present I have moved her back to Ilse Aigner. Hope you don't mind, Gabriel. If it turns out that Ilse is the same as Elsa (or Elisabetha after all), it will need moving again: but I have other interests than ladies called Ilse, so I'll now happily leave that question to others. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you really had no interest, then you would have no objection to me moving all of them to Elisabetha. And the reason I started this whole thing in the first place as that no others were working on it. You're leaving it in a totally unsatisfactory state. Pantocrator 13:12, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've lost me: I don't know what "it" is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I can try to move all of them to Elisabetha, but I think a magister's help will be needed for some because of the redirects. Pantocrator
OK, just ask. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
I've gotten them all moved - it seems the only page I'll need help with is Elizabeth itself, as Elisabetha has a lot of history. Pantocrator 23:30, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Please check the page now looks the way you intended. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you didn't actually use your admin tools! But yes, it looks fine. Pantocrator 03:35, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason was, in this case, there was very little history attached to one page so it really was better to copy-and-paste to the other: in addition the redirect survives so all the history remains. But you were right to ask! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, I still disagree with not standardizing the names even in the case of royalty, as I commented below under Margareta. Pantocrator 22:03, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better start a new thread on that (I think). It's nice to be systematic, but these are the kind of pages that get a lot of casual readers, so we want to be sure that they present Vicipaedia sensibly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:37, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think it belongs under this general subject. I don't think, to answer you, 'casual readers' would be confused by seeing the normalized names; in fact, they may well expect it if they understand how Latin treats names. Pantocrator 22:47, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isabella, though from the same source, appears to be universally recognised as a separate name, with that Latin form. Pantocrator 00:25, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolfus et Rudolfus[fontem recensere]

These are placed together because the second element of the names is the same (== 'wolf' I believe). The point is of course whether we should spell them with 'ph' as I lemmatised or with 'f'. We have examples of both but I believe 'ph' should be used. Having the form change depending on the person's native language violates the fundamental principle of Latin names: that they should be international. English and French, the only major European languages to retain 'ph' (except Greek, but I don't think they use these names) invariably spell them so; and I reckon from that that the mediaeval Latin form also had 'ph' and that 'f' is a modern deviation, and we should go with Latin forms even when they contradict the etymology in the original language. Pantocrator 03:13, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Adolphus is more common than Adolfus, and Rudolphus is more common than Rudolfus. --Gabriel Svoboda 08:33, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what of Adolfus Hitler (discussed before): though we have a citation for Adolfus, ot does not seem that he should be any exception if we are going to use 'ph'. Pantocrator 10:59, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side question. Where they pronounced at one time as adolp-hus (with a p not f and with an aspiration or h sound ), also Rudolp-hus? --Jondel 06:10, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect not. The pronunciations of -ph- and -f- must have been distinct in early Latin (the former used for loanwords from classical Greek, which had no -f- sound) but they merged quite early (under the Roman Empire?), long before names like Adolphus etc. existed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ΘΑΝΧ(Thanks)!--Jondel 08:07, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphonsus and Adefonsus[fontem recensere]

I'd like to raise a matter here. Whereas Alphonsus is the standard form for most kings of Castile/Aragon/Portugal called Alfonso/Affonso, in the original mediaeval documents, "Adefonsus" seems to be more used. The same happens with Rodericus and Rudericus. How much should we go for standard forms and how far should we trust charters and chronicles in very late (but contemporary) Latin?--Xaverius 18:55, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Of course my position favors standardising, as with Elizabeth and Margareta below. Indeed, if we normalize the names of mediaeval royalty, we should do so with modern royalty as well. If Latin were still the common international language, I'm sure international sources would use Elisabetha and Margarita.
In this case I'm sure plenty of Latin sources exist that use Alphonsus as well. Pantocrator 03:28, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my point. Modern sources all standardise it to Alphonsus, whereas contemporary documents use Adefonsus/Adephonsus/Aldefonssus and other variants of "Adefonsus". Alphonsus is the form given in {{Lexicon Universale}}, so we'll stick to it then. --Xaverius 22:06, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging the lists?[fontem recensere]

Pantocrator's new list really is useful because it is pretty much (as he says) "free of typos and forms of dubious provenance". There are some issues:

  • It would be good to have just one list in Vicipaedia space to which new editors can be referred. I suggest we really need a list with citations or with references to past discussions. Pantocrator's list, drawing freely on Index praenominum, may offer the handiest start.
  • We can't (I think) allow any standard list to override the Latin names that people adopted for themselves, so I guess people with self-established Latin names have to remain as exceptions?
  • We haven't yet been able to agree on choices among Ioannes/Iohannes, Gulielmus/etc., Aloysius/Ludovicus and so on; and that's aside from near-homonyms like Matthias/Matthaeus, Victor/Victorius ...; so should our recommended list go on offering alternatives in these cases? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for citations, it sounds good but I don't know what we would cite. I used mainly names attested on this wiki itself, combined with knowledge of some etymologies.

Margareta[fontem recensere]

I'll accept if you must that we shouldn't change attested Latin names, but I personally think that should not be followed in all cases. Take the example I gave above of Queen Margaret. We may have a cite for Margareta, but anyone Latinising her name (and famililar with Latin names) would come up with Margarita. It's standard practice in English and many languages to name royals with a single set of standard names regardless of local preference; why shouldn't that be in Latin? For an analogy, let's suppose that we found that Charles II of Spain wrote some things in English where he spelled is name 'Charels' - would that cause us to change our practice? And speaking of royals, Charlemagne's name is 'Karolus' in contemporary sources but we always write Carolus, the modern Latin spelling.

Latin names ought to have an international standard form; that's the whole point of this project. Names like Margareta for the Queen of Denmark and Elizabeth for the Queen of England (see above under Elizabeth) are either just mistakes from people that don't know better or remnants of variable mediaeval spelling; and as we do not perpetuate mediaeval spellings in common nouns, we should not in Christian names either. Remember that all languages until quite recently did believe that common first names ought to be so treated. Pantocrator 22:08, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aloysius/Ludovicus[fontem recensere]

I think Aloysius/Ludovicus is clear; although they may have been confused in the past, all vernacular forms can be assigned to one or the other. 'Luigi' and 'Alois' go to Aloysius (for which we prefer the spelling Aloisius), all other common forms to Ludovicus (and the feminine forms to Ludovica).

Gulielmus[fontem recensere]

I'm not sure why we standardised on Gulielmus rather than the more phonetically accurate Guilelmus (written in the picture we have on that page), but I am fine with having a standard form. That Latin name appears to be unique in having so many different spellings. Pantocrator 15:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carolus[fontem recensere]

Karolus vs Carolus I wouldn't want to open that can of worms, but I'll bet that whoever wrote "Karolus" was writing in Romance and not Latin. I'd also guess they were writing that before Alcuin got on the job. Of course, I could be wrong. Medieval Latin is fascinating stuff, but it's too late here (or I don't have sufficient ambition) to go nosing into the sources to see in which contexts it was written Karolus and in which contexts it was written Carolus. I'm sure it could be quite interesting. (Side note, I for one rather like that Kevin counterintuitively becomes Coemgenus, vide Coemgenus Federline. It keeps the weird in the language, and weirdness is good for you.) Sinister Petrus

For Karolus: [25] I wouldn't call that Romance. As for Kevin, I say that I don't like weirdness for its own sake. I think we should prefer what people except to see. Note, on Disputatio:Britney Spears it is argued that we can't Latinise her name because 'it makes us look foolish' yet Britannia is etymologically impeccable and it the phonetic and etymological connection will be immediately seen by visitors - neither is true for Coemgenus. Pantocrator 10:15, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've never answered the simple question of why you want Latin to be so user friendly. Why would you want to give the users something like Kevinus, which they'd expect, but not Coemgenus, which is Latin? I think, hope, and expect more people come here to learn, than to reinforce their own unidiomatic Latin. Weirdness for weirdness' sake is the whole point of natural languages and what distinguishes languages like Latin from Interlingua. For example, people learning English as a foreign language would expect (and really want!) working hard and hardly working to mean the same thing or the old joke that we drive on a parkway and park in(on) a driveway.
Weirdness when it is an established feature of the language, yes - but not because weirdness is morally good. You may be right about Coemgenus but you have to admit personal names don't in general follow strictly the rules that other features of the language do (e.g. they're never translated). Pantocrator 00:11, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannia[fontem recensere]

As for Britannia... I admit I probably agree with you. Can you find anyone named Britney written about as named Britannia? --Ioscius 12:17, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, there is a strong reason why Britannia won't do for Britney Spears as far as Vicipaedia is concerned. We only convert traditional forenames that have traditional Latin equivalents. That's the reason for the list that Pantocrator has created. Britney is not a traditional forename.
If there were a consensus for translating forenames into what we fancy their etymological meaning is in Latin, that would still be no good because britney does not mean anything or have a demonstrable etymological origin in English. It is a fantasy name, which I guess was invented by Britney Spears' parents or somebody they were copying.
If there were a reliable etymological source that Britney is a variant of the place name Brittany (which I don't believe -- books that make claims about the etymology of children's names are rarely reliable sources, and I know of no reliable website on that subject), and if we additionally had a consensus for translating forenames into what we fancy their etymological meaning to be, the translation would be Armorica or Aremorica or, so we are told, Britannia Minor. Not Britannia. Sorry. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:56, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There don't tend to be any reliable sources in the sense you mean, but we generally use common sense to determine if one name is a variant of another, and we consistently treat those as the same for the purpose of Latinising. It's not plausible to think names are made up of whole cloth, and so there's no reason not to think 'Britney' and 'Brittany' (etc.) are the same name. We never _translate_ personal names, so your Armorica is just a straw man. The Latin equivalent could only be Britannia which is unquestionably derived from the same source as is 'Brittany'.
What's a 'traditional' forename anyway? One that has a history going back to the time Latin was regularly used? Many names would not meet that criterion. Indeed, Kevin is not a 'traditional name' by that standard is it? What about the names Tergum violinae is moving? Is Kali a 'traditional name'? No, but if it is etymologically equivalent to Carolus/Carola (and I don't doubt it), we can Latinise it as he did. What one thinks of Britney Spears should be irrelevant to how we treat her name, and I do not see how to a new visitor that understands the idea of Latinising names but not the specific etymlogies how Britannia can 'make us look foolish' but not Coemgenus. Pantocrator 00:11, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Kali isn't a traditional name. The lady's original name is Carol Jean Mountford, and I would suppose that TV moved on that basis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that justifies it, but you didn't snwer my question. Pantocrator 02:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but I probably could if Google had Latin as a language option. I do find plenty of sites confirming the etymology of the name, though. Pantocrator 12:15, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still avoiding the question. --Ioscius 13:00, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just did a google search for "Carolus" vs. "Karolus" restricted to thelatinlibrary.com. 50 pages to 25, so I suspect that there could be an interesting line of puttering around on that point. But the time (for me anyway) isn't now. Iosci, I revel in the weirdness of language, but you knew that. I'll bet a source calling someone Britannia vel sim. exists somewhere. Sinister Petrus 06:18, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave this because it's all fantasy until someone comes up with a female human who has been given the forename "Britannia". Incidentally I agree that Coemgenus looks silly and is an example of an aberrant register of medieval Latin; but it was a forename used as such in Latin texts and so it matches our rules. Since we have taken the decision to convert forenames, we have to follow rules: there would be no other way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:22, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How exactly is 'Coemgenus' not etymologically impeccable? "Kevin" is the English form of the old Irish name Cóemgein, of which 'Coemgenus' would be a straightforward Latinization. In modern Irish it's Caoimhin, apparently. Just because the English has drifted doesn't mean it should gather any special status — we still write Iacobus for James, after all, and those names have just as many letters in common as Coemgenus and Kevin. —Mucius Tever 06:33, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't, only that Britannia is at least as much so, and its etymology is still apparent at sight. Does Coemgenus/Kevin have a continuous history of use from that time? - I rather thought it was a modern name. And how is it pronounced in Old Irish and in modern Irish? I doubt if the Latin form is a good approximation to any other language's pronunciation. Pantocrator 12:13, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't know, then why do you doubt? --Ioscius 13:01, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't come up with any examples for 'Kevin' being used as an ordinary first name before the 20th century. With most traditional names that is easy. Pantocrator 00:11, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to bother with the 20th Century. We've got Latin, which needn't fuss with such a narrow timescale. Here's a biography of St. Kevin, the founder of Glendalough in County Wicklow. Or a quick search of "Vitae sanctorum Hiberniae" at books.google.com will turn up this guy as Coemgenus in Latin.
Of course I know about the Saint, after all this discussion. But that single case does not seem to be to strongly dispel the notion that 'Kevin' is a modern name that happens to be descended from the name of an old Irish Saint. Pantocrator 07:08, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
St Kévin is familiar in France (his saint's day is 3 June according to our kitchen calendar). The name seems to be quite common among French footballers (see fr:wiki). If it's in the list of 365 day-saints, which it is, then it's bound to have a certain (and lasting) popularity -- some people name their kids after the saint of their birthday. Anyway, Pantocrator, you're absolutely right: Kevin "is a modern name that happens to be descended from the name of" a Saint. So is John. So what? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'John' has a continuous tradition of use back to the time when everything was recorded in Latin. Kevin does not seem to. That's the difference. Pantocrator 02:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said,I'm still looking for a decent source concerning Britney. I've not been able to turn up a Latin source for the name of Brittany in France (though I've come close, Roger of Hovedon's Annals, nor have I been able to turn up a reasonably sound source about the name's origins—despite seeming pretty obvious. Sinister Petrus 05:43, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, when the phonetics are that close, the connection should be taken for granted in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise. Pantocrator 07:08, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phonetics of BritneyBritneia are closer than the phonetics of BritneyBritannia or Brittania, so you take it for granted that Britneia is aptest, right? It doesn't have the intrusion of a stressed a. IacobusAmor 13:24, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To use my example above, if we ran across the form 'Charels' in an English text, no one in his right mind would think it unrelated to 'Charles'. Pantocrator 07:08, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our rule here is not to guess (i.e. "take for granted") and not to rely on our opinions. On en:wiki facts have to be based on reliable sources, and be verifiable (either footnoted, or able to be footnoted if questioned). Would anyone disagree with this statement if it appears in a draft of the Latin version of en:WP:Verifiability)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Well, if that's what it means, I can't endorse it. Any rule that requires such silly contortions does not belong in an encyclopedia. I know that it's enforced an English, with predictably bad results: bias, inefficiency, and absurdity being enforced by people that don't understand the subject of the page. Pantocrator 02:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henricus/Hendricus[fontem recensere]

Another example both of Pantocrator's precipitousness and of the bizarre consequences of our rule of Latinizing first names is the move of Hendricus Sneevliet to Henricus Sneevliet: as can be read on the corresponding Dutch and English pages, Henk Sneevliet was baptized into the Roman Catholic church as Hendricus Josephus Franciscus Marie (sic!) Sneevliet. What possible justification is there for rebaptizing him as Henricus?--Fabullus 18:47, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None, if my opinion is asked. :-) --Neander 18:56, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is indisputable that his name is a historical equivalent of the standard Latin form Henricus, and so converting it should be no more controversial than doing so with 'Henry' or any other local form. (We already had Henricus Lorentz, for example.) As for that baptismal name, if it is even intended to be Latin, the people that invent those things may not be very careful, as you can see Marie is an obvious error. I say that such deviations should not even be considered unless the person in question has referred to himself in Latin with the non-standard name. Pantocrator 03:24, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-etta[fontem recensere]

On Disputatio:Henrietta, Andrew Dalby asked whether we could accept the name Henrietta in Latin. I do not know, but it doesn't seem incorrect to borrow a vernacular suffix for distinct names. We have a few other examples of it (also Carlotta which seems to have the same suffix) around here, and I just created another by moving Annicula Brooke (vulgo Annette) to Annetta.
Is this the time to bring up again Annula Pelosi? It really seems a siily Latinisation, and we have not changed other Nancys (except for Annula Llewellyn, and for her I assume she's used the Latin form herself). It's true that it originated as a diminutive of 'Anne', but that is now obscured; I don't think that vernacular diminutives should ordinarily be translated by Latin diminutives anyway. Pantocrator 05:50, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And other - Yvette Cooper -> Ivetta. That's certainly a feminine form of Ivus, and thus should be Latinised; if we didn't keep the suffix it would be Iva. If you accept Iacoba from 'Jacqueline' then that should not be too much a stretch! Pantocrator 06:37, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannia and Latin names[fontem recensere]

(new section for clarity)
No one (or almost no one) has been named in Latin for 14 centuries. Pantocrator 02:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A statement of dubious truth-value and relevance. IacobusAmor 16:42, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Rather, people are named in the vernacular, then the name may be translated into Latin. Up to the 18th century, official records were in Latin many places, and thus we have Latin equivalents to common names from that time. Admittedly, some of them were rather bad Latinisations that just added '-us' to the vernacular; we have accepted some of those, but normalized others to the more proper Latin form. Therefore, for modern names, we are not likely to have any official translations but there's no reason the standard on Latinising should change, and we should sometimes have to take over the function that that the government officials would have done in the middle ages.
Now there are some Google hits for Britannia Spears, although we can't be sure that any did not get the name from us. But even if they did, it shows that they at least find it plausible. The standard is based on the assumption, which I share, that names in Latin form are preferable. As for the etymology of the name, it is probably not provable absolutely, but the common alternative spelling 'Brittany' strongly suggests it, and I dare say that any mediaeval official taking down the name would be not unlikely to come up with Britannia (and possibly inferior Latinisations like Britneia etc.). The etymology of _any word_, indeed, is not often provable absolutely by Mr. Dalby's proposed standard, but there is nothing better than to take the probable derivation, and if probable enough we can by scientific standards take it as fact, which is all one can ask for.
Mr. Dalby asked above, has the name Britannia ever been used for a person? In English, the answer is surely yes. Searching Google for 'Britannia' with various common surnames, I do find many results. But of course, the identity of the English name 'Britannia' with 'Britney' rests on the same etymology he questions above, and so this is really of no account - nevertheless I'm sure even he could not doubt that that name would be Britannia in Latin, showing that the use as a personal name can't be considered absolutely new. Pantocrator 02:09, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are too many words here (some of them mine) about one just-about-notable person's name. I won't add any more :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:37, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well this isn't really about that one person's name, but, to start, about everyone named Britney or Brittany etc. And I am making a point about Latin naming in general; Britney Spears herself is of no account to me. But I should think still that if you have no response, it should be OK to name her Britannia, since you're the only person that strongly objected (of course, now, other people will, just to contradict me). Pantocrator 03:05, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too object, and not to spite you, Pantocrator. We have agreed not to invent names here, so if there is any doubt about a name's latinatization, we should not latinize it, as is the case with Britney. Personally, I think we should be even more restrictive about latinizations than we currently are, and not turn every James, Jim, Hamish, Diego, Jacques or Jaap into Iacobus, unless this latinization is attested for that particular person. Someone might argue that these latinizations are useful because they provide us with a declinable name, but in that case we should be latinizing last names, not first. --Fabullus 07:54, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't agree more! --Neander 14:21, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't consider it inventing a name when we simply convert it into a known Latin form like Britannia is. We follow the tradition of late Neo-Latin in converting first names only, though I would rather if I were making rules in a vacuum Latinise surnames, too, if possible. Pantocrator 11:02, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ecce aliud exemplar: sicut Anglicum urbis nomen Sydney Latine est Sydneium, forsitan ita Anglicum mulieris nomen Britney recte sit Britneia. Suffixum Anglicum -ney Latinum -neius, -neia, -neium ordinatim fieri videtur. IacobusAmor 13:17, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita set, sed uerba Sydney non Latine originem habet. Britney, suum Latinitas sumptum, debet Britannia - uti inferius Britneia, cum praesto Britannia, asininum est. Et quomodo Brittany et alia, certe non Britneia etsi idem!
Sine dubito, etiam, tu Latine scripsisse ut defunctatur me, et ab hoc causa linquam ... Pantocrator 04:51, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Praecepti nominum paginarum[fontem recensere]

After some discussions lately, I feel the lack of a la-sister of en:WP:AT, a policy for page namings. In vain, I sought for it by means of the English sister's iwlinks; and then wrote some remarks. However, after a rather long search, I found out that there indeed is a fairly well-hidden proclaimed Latin sister, namely Vicipaedia:Titulus, which for some reason was only unilaterally linked. I now have fixed the link from en:WP:AT.
The VP:Titulus page does not address the general principles I'm searching for. Thus, I move my comments to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Titulus. I hope that anyone who like me feels the need for more clear guidelines - or who have the opposit opinion - view the VPpage and its talk page. Georgius B 17:51, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, oddly enough, I just said elsewhere that we needed a Latin version of en:WP:NOR. I think you're quite right that we need our own version of this title guideline as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't be surprising if attorneys weren't behind such statements as the reminder that the policy covers
unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions"—
the point being that this is the surest way possible to quash POV-based arguments: even if someone insists that a passage doesn't represent a POV, the lack of publication elsewhere can serve as proof that it does. IacobusAmor 13:43, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania Scholarships[fontem recensere]

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

lingua Tzigana[fontem recensere]

I can’t find a testified source; what about lingua Acingana sive lingua Cingara (Ernst Friedrich Wüstemann: Deutsch-lateinisches Handwörterbuch has at least Cingarus, Cingara - but lingua Cingarorum).--Utilo 22:17, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lingua Zingarica has got some attestations. --Gabriel Svoboda 08:20, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More receptum linguae nomen est Rromani ćhib (aut fortasse Romani ćhib), et natio Rom (pl. Roma), atque adeo Romani (pl. Romanorum) (vel fortasse Rromani, Rromanorum). ¶ Nomen Tzigana ad Aegyptum spectat, sed ipsa natio in alia loca ex India Medio Aevo demigraverunt. IacobusAmor 08:58, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lingua Zingarica looks good. - Quoad Rromani: I would be glad to find a Latin attestation of this self-appellation (to use those old appellations like acingani, cingari, aegyptii etc. is, of course, problematical, because these are exonyms and often used in a pejorative sense - not only but especially in German ["Zigeuner"] and by the Nazis). --Utilo 15:36, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just found juventus cingarica, cingaricus, cingaricae ... artis, cingaricas--Utilo 15:55, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pronounced /kingarika/ etc., and apparently from the Hungarian misperception that the people are Egyptians. The people's own term for their language easily produces lingua R(r)omaniensis, but that could get mixed up with notions of Rome. [Later:] Hmm. One wonders whether maybe it shouldn't. A couple of decades ago, I read an anthropological paper that said certain European peasants (in the Balkans?) still referred to Greeks as Romans, apparently keeping alive a memory of the Roman Empire. From Europeans' viewpoint until 1453, maybe the Rromani, emerging from Turkey & other eastern lands, really did seem to be coming out of the Roman Empire and must hence have been Romans. But then, of course, the similarity of Rromani and Romani could be a coincidence. IacobusAmor 19:59, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The anthropologist was correct and you could change the past tense to the present: Romaios is still heard as a self-description by Greeks.
"Pronounced /kingarika/": how do you know? It seems unlikely to me, since there is some link with "zingarica": the two would meet somewhere around [ts-]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"lingua R(r)omaniensis" looks good, but it means to coin a new "Latin" word. Rom / Romanus? - Nice idea (In Turkey I've myself heard Greek people be called "Rum" = Rhomaioi), but as far as I know "Rom" (man, husband) has nothing to do with "Romanus". Word-history: Gipsy < Aegyptioi; Acingani / Cingari / Zigeuner etc. < Athinganoi (untouchable). By the way, Rom(a) today is widely accepted for gipsies as a whole, but in reality the Roma are only one (large) group among others (Sinti, Lovar, Kaldarasch etc.); therefore in Germany gipsies call themselves "German Sinti and Roma" (thereby excluding others), in Austria "Roma and Sinti". My problem still is: How to call the language?--Utilo 20:52, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"kingarika"? - Also German Zigeuner and Hungarian cigány show a pronounciation [ts-]--Utilo 20:59, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, but the letter c in Latin is /k/, except in certain dialects. IacobusAmor 00:15, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pitkäranta nomen q.e. zingarus praebet, a quo "lingua zingarica" simpliciter derivari potest. --Neander 00:28, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quid sibi vult "Pitkäranta" - ? Nykylatinan sanakirja : suomi-latina-suomi = Lexicon hodiernae latinitatis : finno-latino-finnicum / Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta, Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2006 ?--Utilo 12:23, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reapse alium librum dixi, sc. hunc. --Neander 13:32, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago!--Utilo 13:49, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paginam movi (lingua Zingarica)--Utilo 12:28, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think about moving the article "acingani" (maybe the oldest but rather remote attestation) to "zingari" or "cingari" (far more used throughout the centuries)?--Utilo 08:30, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consentio, Zingarice loquantur Zingari potius quam Acingani. --Gabriel Svoboda 09:11, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glossarium politicum[fontem recensere]

I've just put a "glossarium politicum" on the Vicipaedia - not more but a first attempt, but maybe of some help for futher articles.--Utilo 16:01, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina mensis[fontem recensere]

Ne omnino paginae mensis Aprilis obliviscamur, quaeso aut suadeas novam paginam aut confirmes paginam Telluris a Xavierio suasum apud Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis. Pro me, credo Tellurem aptam mensis paginam fieri.--Rafaelgarcia 07:49, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consentio! IacobusAmor 12:40, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et ego consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per me licet. At mea quidem opinione initium rescribi debeat, nam admodum breve est et insuper nimis de sole narrat doctrinam in sole commemoratam referens. --Neander 19:28, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camerae communium praefectus (Anglice Speaker of the House of Commons[fontem recensere]

Speaker of the House of Commons, Latine camerae communium praefectus?--Helveticus montanus 12:40, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auxilium desideratum[fontem recensere]

For a new article, I need Latin terms for these English terms:

advice column (= "agony aunt")
couples weekend (terminus technicus in mentis medicina ["psychotherapia"])
fulfillment (= status mentis; probabiliter non confectio?)
gay (adiectivum; sis! verbum melius quam homophylophiliacus)
LGBT (acronymum)
outspoken advocate (for something)
on the down-low (sensu LGBT; idioma sub rosa fortasse non omnino aptum)
social worker (administrator/auxiliator pauperum?)

And must diurnum do double duty for 'newspaper' and 'magazine'? The concepts differ drastically. IacobusAmor 14:40, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Periodicum = magazine.Tergum violinae 20:00, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

periodicum = periodical (comentarii periodici); Diurnum aut diarium = daily (quaequam periodicum diarium et quoque diary et journal); ephemeris = daily log aut log, etiam technical journal aut work journal; sed Morgan dat "acta diurna" = newspaper.--24.107.235.195 22:19, 2 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Res controversae[fontem recensere]

His quaestionibus respondeatis aut alias addatis quaeso:

Ego iam aliquid scripsi vocabulo q.e. memum usus. Lemma intactum reliqui, ne disputationem impedirem. --Neander 14:38, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alia res: an aliquis hunc textum potest reperire, sic citatum apud Charlton T. Lewis, Carolus Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxonii, 1879) textus: "Vibilia: a goddess presiding over highways, the goddess of roads. Arn[obius] 4,131"? Talem capitulum in Arnobii libro Adversus gentes non reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quem requiris locus Adversus nationes 4.7.1 4.7.4 esse videtur, qui quidem dubius ("+Vpibilia") esse videtur. --Neander 16:20, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
VPIBILIA dyslexice = PVBLILIA? Sed vera antiquitatis memoriae Publilia fuit uxor Ciceronis, non dea. Erat etiam Lex Publilia. IacobusAmor 16:52, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arnobius loco citato (Nat. 4.7.4) haec dicere videtur: "Nodutis dicitur deus, qui ad nodos perducit res satas, et quae praeest frugibus terendis, Noduterensis: ab erroribus viarum dea + Vpibilia liberat, in tutela sunt Orbonae orbati liberis parentes, in Neniae, quibus extrema sunt tempora. Nam quae durat et solidat infantibus parvis ossa Ossipago ipsa memoratur, Mellonia dea est pollens potensque in apibus, mellis curans custodiensque dulcedinem". --Neander 17:20, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias multas ago, Neander. Versionem Anglicam huius operis habeo textumque Latinum in interrete lego; sed sine contextu locum reperire non potui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bot flag request for User:MerlLinkBot[fontem recensere]

Hi, i would like to request for bot flag:

  • main task: changes external links which are outdated and can be successfully replaced by a new one.
  • side job: interwikis, but only supervised on single sites (done by py)
  • Framework: own framework written in java
  • Already has a bot flag on: dewiki(home),ar,be-x-old,bn,bs,ca,cs,da,el,en,es,fi,fr,he,hr,hu,it,ja,ksh,lb,lt,ms,nl,nn,no,pl,pt,ro,ru,sh,sl,sr,sv,sw,tr,zh,commons,simple and some more requested (see all flags)

Function Details: The bot replaces urls that have to be changed. This can be only a domain change or a more complex page structure change on a website. Links are dectected with the help of the api (and not with regex) and are only replaced if the webserver of the new url returns a 200-status-response for that new resource. “Link text” is not changed. (own framework written in java - used by all of my bots)

You can see examples at the past contribs of my bot. The next job on this wiki would change the 1316 dead links to ippar.pt

Could sb. please help me to localize the edit summary of my bot for la? I have described the four possible edit summaries at Disputatio Usoris:MerlLinkBot. Thx. Merlissimo 02:02, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry you haven't had an answer. I've asked Usor:UV, who knows about bots! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already run the ippar.pt job because there were many external links but only on seven pages. As you can see about 50 links aren't available on the new location and are not replaced.
My bot isn't doing so much edits on smaller wikis and its running irregular. Thats why I am asking for flag when my bot has about 20 edits. Then the community can see what the scripts does. I hope thats ok although bot policy says that bot must be approved first.
If you have any question feel free to ask. Merlissimo 19:26, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Merlissimo, thank you for your bot's good work! Nevertheless, in my view, there is no urgent need for the bot flag on la.wikipedia (yet) because your bot has up to now not made very many edits here on la.wikipedia. But please do continue to run your bot here - if it fills up recentchanges often, you'll get the bot flag for your bot ;-) Greetings, --UV 22:37, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i have added a note to the bots user page [26].
@UV Thx for the translation. Merlissimo 23:07, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accurate[fontem recensere]

Hoc adverbium in Vicipediae paginis saepius, accurate 986ies, legitur. E. g.: Nicolaus Sarkozy (accurate Nicolaus Paulus Stephanus Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa, ...) etc. At dubito an hoc sensu a veteribus adhibitum sit. Scribi enim potest "Nicolaus Sarkozy, aut ut potius dicam / id est / aut pleniore nomine ... appellatus / sive / qui natus est / qui etiam Nicolaus Paulus Stephanus Sárközy de Nagy-Bócsa, ... etc." Adverbia autem omni coniunctione denudata sicut "accurate" non auream quidem latinitatem sapiunt.--Ceylon 10:42, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eeeegad, 986ies est quidem numerus immanis. Addam potius vel aptius. --Ioscius 11:08, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc adverbium est proprium nostrorum amicorum Helvetici Montani et Hendrici delicium. Id commuto ubicumque id reperio. IacobusAmor 14:22, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De fabulis Shakesperianis[fontem recensere]

Nisi fallor, sola tragoedia Julius Caesar Latine versa est. Quo igitur excepto, nomina fabularum Anglice exprimenda sunt in titulis paginarum nostrarum; volo paginas movere. Placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoc "blogium" inveni quod cum ad rogatum minime respondeat, tamen dignum videtur nobis ut lectitetur.--Ceylon 15:39, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nemine contradicente, moveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:28, 20 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonne discretiva esse debet? Iulius Caesar est solum de homine, atque non est nexus ad tragoediam. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 10:42, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recte monuisti. Paginam discretivam feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 21 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De paginis mensium futuris[fontem recensere]

Amici, quid censetis de paginis quas propono hic: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis#Paginae futurae? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxoboxes[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I've been working on a few issues with the taxoboxes for a few hours, and I think I have most of them fixed (especially issues with the fossil range section and the conservation status section). I haven't found an easy way to test all cases of the taxobox yet, so if you run into any issues with them whatsoever, please let me know right away and I will get to work fixing them! Thanks a lot! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 05:51, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some taxoboxes are generating a category "IUCN Red List least concern species," which doesn't exist. Whoever knows which larger category it's a member of might want to create it. IacobusAmor 10:06, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freezing and glaciers[fontem recensere]

A note on Disputatio:Maris aequor asks where I got the word glaciar(e) for 'glacier'. The truth is, I just put it into a Latinised form. Before I answer the question of the proper Latin term for glacier, I must make a digression about freezing.

One of the few places in which I would depart from the use in modern scientific Latin is to use gelare rather than congelare for 'freeze' (and likewise gelatio etc.). The shorter form was more common in classical times, so can't be opposed on that ground, and there are some modern uses: The title quoted here has punctum gelationis aquae. (This is a middle voice verb, so properly 'The water freezes' = Aqua gelatur.)

The reason is to distinguish between 'freeze' and 'congeal'; the prefixed form having always been used for the latter. Admittedly there are other words for 'congeal'; the chemists used coagulare and conglutinare, but there can be no harm in allowing congelare also. The same goes for glaciare, which in classical times was already uses for 'freeze' and never had the prefix; but chemists made that too conglaciare. That is even more objectionable as we must Latinise the modern scientific terms 'glacial' and 'glaciation' and to have the verb with a prefix that disappears in the adjective and noun would be very silly.

I can't control everyone's Latin usage but I would recommend that here we use the simple forms gelare and glaciare when the meaning is simple freezing, the latter being of course preferably restricted to water while the former can be used of any liquid. Hence, the congelatio added to that article (Maris aequor) I should change to glaciatio.

Now, as for 'glacier', the true Latin ancestor of the modern forms appears to be glaciarium, the form given by Whitaker's and confirmed by Italian 'ghiacciaio'. My own suggestion would have been massa glacialis. Because again Google does not permit Latin as a language option, it is difficult to search for, but I found this genuine New Latin, published 1853. It looks like that's the term we should adopt; it also is consonant with a normal Latin derivation meaning 'place of ice'.

I should also add that that Latin book, which is a summary of various Italian books, being of such a late date, might be valuable for finding other geological terms in Latin. I commented on Disputatio:Granatum (lapis) that I wished for such. As for granite, I searched the book: the Italian 'granito' occurs in the genitive, and is rendered graniti, which supports granitum, -i; but the instances of the Italian plural 'graniti' are rendered granites (!) which would support a singular granis, -itis. Pantocrator 22:33, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A glaciarium is "a skating-rink with ice artificially produced" (OED). IacobusAmor 23:53, 5 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be a proper name, Iacobe. --Ioscius 08:27, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't; and the suffix -arium, being a marker of a nonnatural locality, as of a trade (Gildersleeve 181.4) in the Roman seminarium 'seed-plot' (one also thinks of the balnearia 'baths', place for bathing), and in the more modern aquarium & vivarium, works against an application to a natural process like a glacier. ¶ I should think the most Roman way of specifying a glacier might be something like glacies. Period. Or if forced to be more specific, concreta glacies 'compounded ice' (thus Livy, dura et alte concreta glacies), or more descriptively, glacies alpina 'alpine ice' or glacies montana 'mountain ice'. IacobusAmor 11:06, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes yes it's a well formed proper name. But it's hard to deny that the cite exists for glaciarium as a glacier, even though that's not what seems the most Latin way of doing it. --Ioscius 11:10, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cite in the OED refers only to a skating-rink, not to a glacier. The discussion at [27] does seem to refer to a glacier, but then that's New Latin, and (given the author's name) perhaps a back-formation from the Italian. IacobusAmor 11:23, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Morgan:
.geo glacier / glaciata moles (LRL)
.geo glacier / moles glacialis [Soc. Lat.]; glaciata moles [Latinitas] (HELF.)
.geo glacier glaciata moles, mons perpetua glacie rigens (LEV.)
From Traupvir:
moles conglaciata
No mention of glaciarium.
--Ioscius 08:00, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add, for "ice rink", Morgan gives:
.athl skating rink / curriculum soleis ferratis prolabentium (LRL); curriculum glaciale (CIAR.)
.athl skating rink / Eisbahn: curriculum glaciale [Eichenseer]; area glacialis [Latham] -- Eisstadion (arena for watching figure skating): stadium glaciale [Latinitas] (HELF.)
.athl rink harena lubrica (or gelida) (LEV.)
.athl skate (ice) solea ferrata; (roller) pedirota; - vi (on ice) soleis ferratis super glaciem decurro | skating rink harena ad prolabendum (LEV.)
--Ioscius 08:05, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh great: harena ad prolabendum 'a sandy place for gliding forward'. IacobusAmor 11:29, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which sound like more explanations than names. IacobusAmor 11:09, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See previous discussions Disputatio:In conservatorio and Disputatio:Oetsius. Note Neander: an obvious back formation, but as PC proves, an old one. --Ioscius 08:37, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1853 is not old! ¶ And in Disputatio:Oetsius, you'll read Iustinus saying "If we find a locus classicus, I'm guessing it would use just glacies." IacobusAmor 11:39, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that glaciarium has more than one meaning, the forms based off moles are less ambiguous and look more like something a conservative Roman would have picked. Maybe we should have a page based on moles, and cite glaciarium? --Ioscius 08:37, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree with something moles-related. "Glaciarium" sounds to me closer to a refrigerator (H: nevera) or even a freezer (H: hielera), a place where to keep ice (~ aquarium, harenarium). --Xaverius 12:10, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And solarium 'sun-dial; place to take in the sun'; and panarium 'bread-basket'; and sudarium 'handkerchief, towel'. The suffix -arium seems not quite right in reference to nonartificial items. IacobusAmor 12:17, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a few more sources for glaciarium, but that's the only one I could find that is viewable. I agree that it somehow doesn't sound right, but we do need a distinct word or short phrase for 'glacier' - moles glacialis would work I suppose (the phrase used in Oetsius), not glaciata and certainly not conglaciata (see my original note on that).

Still, if glaciarium is the only attested form, I would rather stick with it. It probably sounds almost as 'bad' in Italian (any Italians here to comment?). Pantocrator 04:44, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We also have sources for moles glacialis and glaciata moles--Xaverius 08:07, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those aren't real citations, they're just from dictionary compilers that make phrases up to express things they don't think exist in Latin (but they have no idea of the great extent of New Latin use). Scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries did talk about glaciers in Latin, and apparently they used the term glaciarium. That may be a back-formation, but so is granitum which you just imposed.
This is a good spot for a reality check: are you, my dear man, who cannot write a single grammatical sentence of Latin, presuming to know better than David Morgan about any bit of Latin, new, old, or otherwise? --Ioscius 13:39, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reality is that I found glaciarium and he didn't. It has nothing to do with anything personal. I believe David Morgan himself has said that he did not do indepedent research but merely compiled vocabulary lists from others. I admit such research is very time-consuming but Google is a great help and we only need to do one word at a time. Pantocrator 14:00, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did however say that such compilers have no idea of the extent of New Latin use. I know you know very little about Latin, and therefore very little about personalities in the world of active and spoken Latin, but I promise you David Morgan is one of the towering geniuses in our field, and he speaks as well as you and I speak English. That's the type of "compiler" whose instinct I like to trust. Your instinct wouldn't save a sinking ringum or sumpa.
Then you brag about finding glaciarium. Right good job. But your first instinct was glaciare, which is childish, then massa which is more plausible, but we see nowhere. Then you find your favorite thing, a Latin word back formed from Romance, and hinge on it. In defense of this word (which no one is really arguing against) you put down the likes of David Morgan and put down citations like LRL or Soc. Lat. The reality is that the people who wrote this things know Latin, and can write in it. How do you, who can't write a sentence in Latin, presume to have instincts about it? You dodge this question whenever it is asked. --Ioscius 17:10, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De "In defense of this word [glaciarium] (which no one is really arguing against)."—Ahem. One might hope that one should at least be considered someone. ;) IacobusAmor 17:29, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, mi Iacobe =] I'm not a fan either, it sounds to me like a freezer or a place with ice ie an ice rink. It bores me to argue endlessly though, if it must be cited, it must be cited. But it shouldn't be the go to word, as I think has been shown. --Ioscius 17:40, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not bragging. Nor am I putting down Morgan's work, which is useful but only if taken as it is: a collection of modern Latin terms - not an oracle. I was only stating the facts. Pantocrator 05:18, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I keep emphasizing this, it's because Neo-Latin use is the only reason people are interested in using Latin today in the first place. If it had died with the Romans, it would be only of antiquarian interest like other dead ancient languages. Pantocrator 13:04, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What source do you have for such a statement? --Ioscius 17:10, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be common sense. Ancient Greek has a more extensive, and, most would argue, superior, literature, yet hardly anyone is interested in communicating with it. Likewise for other ancient languages. Only Latin, because of its heritage as the common language of Europe until recent times, gets that attention. Pantocrator 05:18, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also have Livy, for whom a glacier appears to have been glacies : "per nudam infra glaciem fluentemque tabem liquescentis nivis ingrediebantur." IacobusAmor 10:14, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's reasonable to want a term for 'glacier' distinct form that for 'ice'. Pantocrator 13:04, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Livius noster uses glacies, maybe glacies (moles), glacies (mons) or something of the sort is more original than any other backformation like glaciarium. Glaciarium and other terms can be included later in the page, as all are attested.--Xaverius 14:47, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neander noster was ready to point out the sense Livius was giving to glacies may not really refer to a glacier, which I could have never really noticed in Disputatio:Glaciarium.--Xaverius 22:13, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summarium[fontem recensere]

Well, it seems my glaciarium has been accepted,

Not by everybody; its regular development in English results in 'glaciary'. IacobusAmor 11:37, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The English form comes directly from the French, which is regular. Pantocrator 11:29, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

though I'm not sure why you dropped your opposition suddenly.

Meanwhile, what will be our standard terms for the changes of state? I said above that freezing should be gelatio and not congelatio and no one complained.

So:

Solidum -> Liquidum = Liquefactio (siue Liquatio siue Fusio)
Solidum -> Gas = Sublimatio
Liquidum -> Gas = Ebullatio ?
Liquidum -> Solidum = Gelatio (siue Congelatio)
Gas -> Liquidum = Condensatio
Gas -> Solidum = ?

Any input? Pantocrator 11:42, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gas -> Solidum = Desublimatio? --Gabriel Svoboda 14:53, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc apud Leibniz inveni: "Liquatio est, cum ex corpore firmo fit liquidum ob permistionem cum liquido. Fusio vel liquefactio est cum ex corpore firmo fit fluidum per calorem sive per halitum calidum." - Gas -> Solidum = Resublimatio? - Liquidum -> Gas = Evaporatio cf[28]? - Gas -> Solidum = Depositio?--Utilo 15:51, 14 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boiling and evaporation are different things and that paper is clearly about the latter. English and the other big wikis have different articles on the two; I suppose we should have both Evaporatio and Ebullatio but I agree the former is the more physically fundamental, so that if we have only one it should be that one.
I know that liquatio has been used both for melting and solution (which are thermodynamically the same!), but our standard term for the latter is (dis)solutio, isn't it?
Finally I don't believe Depositio has the right meaning in Latin, but I might be wrong as we don't have a comprehensive New Latin dictionary. Pantocrator 01:22, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, if we followed punctum fervoris, boiling would be fervere (inf.). This actually would be the more classical choice, and avoids the hesitation in spelling between (e)bullatio (the more regular form) and ebullitio (the form that has passed into modern languages). Pantocrator 02:48, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes *ebullatio "more regular" than ebullitio? L&S have ebullio as their headword for the verb and say that ebullo, -are is a post-classical form. And bullatio is apparently not boiling at all. —Mucius Tever 11:20, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you look at that L&S entry, ebullatio isn't boiling either; fervere is the most common classical term. As for the form, bulla is a 1st-declension noun and so the verb formed from it should be 1st conjugation. Pantocrator 02:32, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"ebullatio isn't boiling either" — Yes, that was my point; according to L&S, ebullatio doesn't exist at all. "bulla is a 1st-declension noun and so the verb formed from it should be 1st conjugation." — No, Latin actually doesn't work that way, especially if you mean words of declension X in general are represented by words of conjugation X (there's the example of 'servus' -> 'servire', and besides, where would the fifth declension go?). There are several ways to form verbs from nouns in Latin—some even have different meanings—it just happens that taking the bare stem and adding the endings of the first conjugation is the most common (or at least the most familiar). —Mucius Tever 11:15, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say ebullitio. Nowhere did I say that the index number of a conjugation or declension determined anything! But in Latin generally, denominatives formed from 1st-declension nouns were 1st-conjugation; indeed, that's what generates the regular form bullare. The example of seruire is easily explained: seruare was already taken, by an unrelated word. Pantocrator 11:29, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only cite of ebullitio actually quoted is that of the ebullitio of scintillans oleum used to scald someone, so the gloss may be conservative. (L&S often prefer to give etymological überglosses even when most of the examples of a word are in more specific senses... But while it's true that etymologically the root meaning of ebullire is closer to 'bubble' than to 'boil', of course the same thing is true about the English 'boil'.) As for servire — again, Latin doesn't work that way; homophony exists. I'm not even entirely sure that you could say servare was "already taken"; both words exist in older Latin, and similar 4th-conjugation denominatives from the first and second declension have no competition: poenapunire/†poenire (even though *punare/*poenare aren't "taken"), insanusinsanire (though *insanare also isn't taken). Cf. also the difference between fugare and fugire, both ← fuga. —Mucius Tever 22:15, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll admit that the conjugation of denominatives isn't perfectly regular. (Although your last example is wrong - fugio, -ere came first, then fuga, then fugare - regular.) I'm not sure why these deviations exist; the majority of 4th conj. denominatives are from i-stems.
Getting back to the point, the example of ebullitio could indeed be taken as 'boiling'. It's still irregular, however, if only because the verb does not usually have the prefix when in a literal sense. I'm not sure, either, that 'bullire is earlier. Pantocrator 05:25, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"your last example is wrong - fugio, -ere came first, then fuga, then fugare - regular." — Where does your timeline come from? The formation fuga is of Indo-European date; the Greek φυγή is formally identical. Neither Pokorny nor Watkins show any cognates of the formation fugio, suggesting it was not old enough to survive in other IE branches. (Indeed, the outcome of a Proto-Indo-European *fug-yo: would be fuio, like aio for *ag-yo:.) As for "the verb does not usually have the prefix when in a literal sense" — Isn't it the point that if the verb means 'boiling' it's not in a literal sense? The literal sense of 'bullo', as stated, is 'to bubble'; presumably the prefix would be modifying that. "I'm not sure, either, that 'bullire is earlier." — Who said it was, and what does it matter to ebullire if so? Cf. again sanare but insanire; dare but perdere, edere, etc.; parere, but reperire... — the conjugation of a verb may usually but does not necessarily pass down to other words derived from the same root. —Mucius Tever 19:47, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is getting really off the point, being a discussion of etymologies. I got my information about fuga and fugere from the OLD, but admittedly they always consider the verb as primary. I don't think we can be certain about what happened that long before records. Anyway, they are both ancient, while fugare is regularly formed from fuga. I admitted that conjugations of denominative verbs aren't always as expected from the noun (and in later times there was a tendency to use the 1st conj. exclusively, no matter what the noun stem). As for your last examples sanare and insanire were formed independently from the adjectives and have unrelated meanings (one transitive, one intransitive - and it may be observed that transitives had a greater tendency to go into the 1st conj.) and the latter two are very old and have nothing to do with noun stems. By the 'literal meaning' of bullire I did mean 'boil'; in classical times, all examples with the prefix (in OLD or L&S) were figurative. So it looks as if the prefix was another excrescent later addition, and indeed the English 'boil' comes from bullire without it. However I can't reject it as readily as with (con)gelare, for lack of any certain examples of bullatio or bullitio meaning boiling. In any case my initial suggestion was that these questions might be avoided by calling the article fervere, which is unobjectionable classically; and we already have at least one article called by an infinitive (as feruere is one of the great group of 2nd conj. statives, it has no supine stem and thus can't form an abstract noun). Pantocrator 13:01, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then there's effervescere. IacobusAmor 11:37, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only does that have an unneeded prefix and suffix, it could be confusing as 'effervescence' is quite a different thing than boiling. Pantocrator 02:32, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Need" is a dangerous notion when it comes to language. (In English, we don't need to put an ess at the ends of our verbs in the third person singular indicative, but we do; we don't need to mark most nouns as plural, but we do; we don't need to have a subset of strong verbs, like drink, drank, drunk, but we do.) Effervescence is English, but effervescere is Latin, so no confusion arises. Cassell's defines effervescere as 'to boil up, foam up, effervesce.' Merriam-Webster's defines effervesce as 'to bubble, hiss, and foam as gas escapes'. ¶ Then there's Latin aestuare, defined by Cassell's as 'to boil, be agitated, seethe'. Merriam-Webster's definitions of seethe include 'boil, stew; churn or foam as if boiling'. IacobusAmor 11:41, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the simple verb had fallen out of use (or nearly so) by classical times you might have a point, but it had not; fervere was still the common word for boiling. Effervescere is practically equivalent to English 'effervesce', and should have a broader meaning than just boiling. Aestuare similarly does not have boiling as its basic meaning; it could be argued that feruere has the same (to be hot), but I think the analogy of punctum fervoris and the participle feruens should be decisive between the two. Pantocrator 12:07, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

abbatia / sanctus[fontem recensere]

I've just seen the new site Abbatia (discretiva) - which, of course, makes sense. But from my point of view we shouldn't use headings like Abbatia Mariae ad Lacum or Sanctus Thomas Aquinas - There are hundreds or even thousands of abbeys and saints! Better the other way round: Maria ad Lacum (Abbatia) - there is also a little town called Maria Laach in Austria, i.e. Maria ad Lacum sive Maria Lacensis (Austria Inferior) - and: Thomas Aquinas (even without "Sanctus") - cf. the other Vicipaedias! Sanctus is by no means part of the name, but (only) a kind of official "rating" given by the Catholic Church.--Utilo 08:21, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already added a "delenda", because this is a case for a "category", not a discretiva. There are not several meanings for abbey, but several abbeys. --Alex1011 09:54, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, it is a question of attested names. For categories we can see to it, that the abbeys do not appear with abbatia first, but with their more special name: "Categoria:abbatiae|Mariae ad lacum, abbatia".--Alex1011 09:54, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restrictive redirects[fontem recensere]

Someone has made a redirect from Diametrum to Circulus—which means we won't have an article coordinate with en:Diameter. Also, someone has made a redirect from Radius (geometria) to Circulus—which means we won't have an article coordinate with en:Radius. Also, someone has made a redirect from Gyrus to Orbis (astronomia)—which means we won't have an article coordinate with en:Gyrus. IacobusAmor 10:47, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those redirects seem to me unnecessary, thanks for pointing them out. No other page directs to Radius (geometria), except for radius, so I'd vote for its deletion. Diametrum on the other hand, has many links to it, and I do not know how unaccurate it is to link diametre with circle and not with circumferentia.--Xaverius 12:15, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.--Ioscius 12:41, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's an excellent idea. For the present, it's handy that the two concepts are at least defined and illustrated on the page Circulus. When anyone wants to write a separate article on them, they can. What's wrong with that?
Against Xaverius's suggestion to delete Radius (geometria): there are in fact several relevant links pointing towards the discretiva page "Radius", so to have a redirect leading on from it is (I think) better than nothing at all.
Incidentally, the "someone", in both cases, was Usor:Pantocrator. Surely it's more polite to use his name! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pantocrator latine scribere sane nescit itaque sibi placere solet inutiliter movendo res.Tergum violinae 16:11, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ut mihi quoque videtur. --Ioscius 16:51, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the radius >> radius (geometria) >> circulus issue, maybe it would be better to add a sentence of the sort of: radius est linea quae in circulis centrum cum circumferentia nectunt, rather than linking to circulus directly. --Xaverius 18:41, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone -- trying to be polite by not replicating a name often mentioned -- has also redirected structura to aedificium, which is way too restrictive, too. --Neander 18:38, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! I must say I can't see anything useful about that. It doesn't even help with any incoming links. Does anyone oppose deletion? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:12, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not.--Xaverius 19:14, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These redirects aren't intended to be permanent - by all means replace them with a real article or a discretiva. But they are plausible terms that someone might type in, and ought to lead to the closest page we have rather than nowhere. Gyrus was of course the term used by Newton, so can't be ignored. Pantocrator 03:18, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, I am generally with you on that. I don't really understand where the idea of "restrictive redirects" comes from: anyone can edit a redirect, like any other page. No one's restricted. However, aedificium is just one instance out of very many kinds of structurae, so that particular redirect (a very early edit of yours!) isn't useful, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gin[fontem recensere]

Volo paginam scribere de potione, sed quomodo Latine dicam? Spiritus iuniperosus? Seu oportetne nos nomen Anglicum adhibere, sicut aliae linguae hodiernae? Et dum hic sim, approbatisne "aquam tonicam"?Tergum violinae 14:18, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citationem habeo potionis iuniperae. --Ioscius 14:44, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonum ovum.Tergum violinae 16:08, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum aliae Vicipaediae mutuato nomine Gin utantur, quin etiam nos? Mihi quidem "potio iuniperi" potius 'definiens' quam 'definienda' videtur, i.e. "Gin est potio iuniperi" vel sim. --Neander 18:51, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apud nos Hispanos, verbum quod utimur Ginebra est. Nescio si Ginebram formam veram esse.--Xaverius 19:00, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QUO utimur. QUO!
Sed formam speratam Latinam censeo esse "iuniperatum". Ecce, apud Google reperio bis "spiritum vini iuniperatum" (acc.), bis etiam "iuniperatus/-um". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
iuniperatus michi bonus videtur. Etiam nunc iuiperato cum aqua tonica fruor.
Ad salutem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BOTijo bot flag[fontem recensere]

Hi. I run a bot for statistical purposes (User:BOTijo), and it updates some rankings: Usor:Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits and Usor:Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits (bots included). I would like to request flag bot. Regards. Emijrp 22:05, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I had proposed to Emijrp rather to update the rankings only weekly and not daily, because in my view daily updates are not necessary (with or without bot flag). On the other hand, I see no necessity for a bot flag for two edits a day. --UV 21:55, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalismus recens[fontem recensere]

We've apparenly been targeted tonight: Specialis:Contributions/Homer.erat.hic, Specialis:Contributions/Bluemoon, Specialis:Contributions/Kchase are surely all socks. I don't know anything more about this unfortunately. Pantocrator 05:03, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC) And now some more bad usernames in German have been created. These probably aren't the same person as the preceding. Pantocrator 05:25, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange how German schoolkids choose fouler names than any others. But maybe there's just one or two ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 7 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nereids[fontem recensere]

I know they all look the same today, but they'll become individuals tomorrow! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I for one hadn't thought to doubt you. --Ioscius 21:46, 8 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So many Nereids! So little time! IacobusAmor 17:41, 9 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems Doris has been in labour quite a few times. What a labour history! :-) --Neander 19:40, 9 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A hard-working woman, certainly. Incidentally my rule-of-thumb has been to make pages for mythological personalities named in more than one source: there is usually something to say about these and it is a kind of tenuous demonstration of notability ... It's interesting to rediscover each time the randomness with which Wikipedias grow. Many of these Nereids have entries on just one or two Wikipedias, and you can never be sure where to look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 11 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Utrum sitne melius? Nomen medii aevi nomenve antiquum[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes!

In creando conveniebam problema urbes medio aevo et antiquitate alio nomine nominatus esse. (in rebus meis multi tales casús sunt) Rogo igitur num utro nomine utar ad primum, scilicet nunc de inscripitione rei puto. Hic stat eg. problema urbis Hungarice "Sopron" scriptae, idest et Soproninum et Scarbantiam; apud urbem Győr: et Jaurinum et Arrabonam habemus. Nunc utar Pannoniae nominibus, vel nominibus, quae utuntur in Regno Hungariae, cuius sermo rei publicae usque ad 1844 lingua Latina fuit. Ergo quaestio est, utro utarne apud rei apellandum? Valete. --Martinus567 17:26, 9 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quod ad nomina locorum pertinet, recentiora semper praeferenda sunt. V.g. Remi potius quam Durocortorum, Parisii potius quam Lutetia, et caetera. Latinistae sumus, non Romani.Tergum violinae 17:48, 9 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)