Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 15

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categoria:Glossaria[fontem recensere]

I would like to move our glossaries (see the above category for a list of them) to Vicipaedia: space. They are very useful to editors but they don't seem to be like encyclopaedia pages, and they generally don't have interwiki links. Am I right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:46, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What and where is Vicipaedia:space?--Utilo 19:00, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means adding the prefix Vicipaedia: to the pagenames as an indication that these are not encyclopaedia pages, but support pages. They remain just as easy to find. For example, Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you, I understand.--Utilo 20:23, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a good idea, Andrew. --Ioscius 21:24, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[I therefore made the move, but ...] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The en has the glossaries in the article name space, though (en:Portal:Contents/List of glossaries).--Chris1981 02:42, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feeling was that most of our glossaries have a different aim from most of theirs: ours aim to help us translate from modern languages into Latin. But if I'm wrong after all, it isn't difficult to reverse the decision. There are only fifteen or so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scriptores et auctores[fontem recensere]

Quae est differentia inter categorias categoria:Scriptores Poloniae et categoria:auctores Polonici? --Alex1011 09:08, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Scriptores ..." est categorizatio geographica: hi Poloniam habitaverunt. "Auctores ..." est classificatio linguistica: illi Polonice scripserunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago. --Alex1011 09:35, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000 paginae[fontem recensere]

Did the list change at some point? I about to work on Georgius Lucas, but I realized it isn't on the list here. It is currently in the category, and appears on this list--are those outdated sources?--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:57, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In any case, there is only good that would come from updating the Georgius Lucas page. They update the list a couple of times a year it seems, and contemporary people are most likely to be changed back and forth. It is unclear which version we are working from; it is a major chore figuring out what is new. See also: Categoria:Paginae desideratae and m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Absent Articles. I THINK we have about 20 missing from the current list. About 10 of the ones listed as missing were due to interwiki errors.-- 03:16, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, there's no need to carry the mean and the median out to one decimal place. The integers are the significant digits. Could you round your calculations off to the nearest integer? IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Router/Enrutador latine?[fontem recensere]

Volo paginam instituere de 'enrutadores' sed nescio sententiam suam in lingua latina. Est "viatorium/internerium"?? Hispanice enRUTADOR appellatur... quia non 'VIATORIUM' latine? Nescio et dictionario meo non aperitur hoc verbum...

I cannot find a previously attested term. Based on my knowledge of what a router is, without making up words, a latin name could readily be 'automaton communicativum' = 'sharing/communication automaton'; the word communicativus is neolatin; an automaton is any automatically working machine, such as a gas pump or robot. -- 00:20, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Wiki[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I don't know how many of you are aware, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Wikimedia is in the planning stages of designing a "Central Wiki". Basically, every article will link to this central wiki, and all interwiki links will radiate from the central wiki instead of being a confusing web that they are now. More info here. I was wondering your opinions on the matter. Quid putas? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:52, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link, anyway. I don't think it will be an easy thing to do, but they have been talking about it for long enough, so let them try! The idea of trying to maintain the current type of interwiki links, when all 270 wikis have reached the size of the English one, terrified me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:46, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current way of how interlanguage links are stored and maintained is definitely suboptimal. It was high time to consider a redesign. --UV 20:12, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the proposers are sensitive to issues of language imperialism, etc.. The central wiki is not intended to have encyclopedic articles on it; just a database of interwiki links. The upshot is that it will make our work a lot easier.-- 00:22, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OT Request[fontem recensere]

I know this is not strictly related to Wikipedia, so I apologize for that, but this is also probably the best place to find real expert of Latin, not only the classic one, but also the Latin of Middle Age. I need help to write something that I need for my last novel. I would really appreciate if some of you might help. In particular, if you know Gregorian Hymns, it would be perfect. Thank you in advance and sorry for my OT request. PS I speak both English and Italian. I know some Latin but I am not an expert.--Dario de Judicibus (Scribit) 16:23, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Nessuno che mi può dare una mano?--Dario de Judicibus (Scribit) 17:52, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Se cerchi i testi dei Canti Latini e Gregoriani puoi cercare qui:

A me il latino piace moltissimo e sono utente di Vicipaedia, ma sono solo studente. Spero che qualcuno più esperto di me ti dia una mano!--Poecus 20:53, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aedicula Sixtina[fontem recensere]

Please have a look on Disputatio:Aedicula Sixtina an comment my entry there!--Utilo 13:33, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fun thing is that in the sources you mentioned (correct: Constitutio Apostolica "Universi Dominici Gregis") as well as in other Vatican documents (e.g. this letter from Pope John Paul II. to Cardinal Sodano, 5. Nov. 2003 [3] )) neither capella/cappella nor aedicula is used. Instead (to make things in Vivipaedia more complicated) the official denomination is Sacellum Sixtinum. I'm not sure though if this is an Eigenname or the standard usage in church Latin for chapels.--El Suizo 07:39, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sacellum: Kleines Heiligtum, Kapelle (Reclams kleines Wörterbuch der frühchristlichen Kunst und Archäologie, S. 200).--Chris1981 14:19, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Constitutio Apostolica "Universi Dominici Gregis": 50. A Sacello Paulino ... se conferent in Cappellam Sixtinam Palatii Apostolici, locum et sedem electionis peragendae. - José Juan Del Col: Diccionario auxiliar: español-latino para el uso moderno del Latín for capilla has: cap(p)ella, ae f. Sin: sacellum, aedis (-is), oratorium. and: Cap(p)ella Sixtina, Sacellum Sixtinum vel Xystinum, Aedes Sixtina vel Xystina. - Google / sacellum Sixtinum : 192 hints; Cappella Sixtina: 1260 hints; Capella Sixtina: 33.100 hints; Cap(p)ella Xystina and Aedes Sixtina are very rare; Aedicula sixtina: 11.000 hints, but - as it seem to me - many (all?) of them modern. I would prefer a Vatican source in this case. - Where do you know from that "sacellum Sixtinum" is the official denomination?--Utilo 15:18, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Sacellum Sixtinum, 2 hints; Cappella Sixtina, 3 hints; Aedicula Sixtina, 1 hint. --Chris1981 11:08, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the very same Constitutio:
  • Prologus - ...decernimus ut electio in Sacello Sixtino futurum in tempus etiam explicetur...
  • Caput II, n. 13, lit. c - ...qui huius Constitutionis n. 46 commemorantur, utque ea omnia simul parentur necessaria in Sacello Sixtino, unde singulae partes electionem attingentes expleri possint modo quidem facili...
  • Caput III, n. 53 - Peracta autem meditatione, qui eam protulit de Sacello Sixtino cum Pontificiarum Celebrationum Liturgicarum Magistro egreditur.
  • Caput IV, n. 54 - de omnibus in Sacello Sixtino peractis silentium ullo pacto violetur...
  • Caput V, n. 65 - ...Cardinales electores soli in Sacello Sixtino esse debent...
A search in google with "cappella sixtina" delivers just 1 hint, nota bene the beforementioned entry in the constitutio. The same search for Sacellum Sixtinum delivers 3 hints in different Vatican papers. As stated I could imagine that the meaning of Sacellum is used rather as that of an eigenname. I don't know about the official denomination but different indicators (official Vatican papers, all transcripts of the radio broadcasts by the Pope out of the Sistine Chapel are underlined with Nuntius radiophonicus e sacello Sixtino, the papal letter I mentioned) point in this direction and I dare to touch the doctrine of infallibility and think that the Capellam Sixtinam has been added by mistake to the Constitutio.-- El Suizo 11:58, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am quite convinced now, that you are right when prefering Sacellum Sixtinum (by the way: I didn't know how to browse one special site - thank you!) - but what about Aedicula Sixtina? Is one hit from the seventies enough to prefer aedicula to sacellum? Or should it be better moved to Sacellum Sixtinum?--Utilo 14:49, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it simple. Let's treat Sacellum Sixtinum as a integral term for this very special chapel. Move the article to Sacellum Sixtinum, change the introduction to Sacellum Sixtinum sive Aedicula Sixtina and redirect searches to Aedicula or cappella Sixtina to the new article. --- El Suizo 09:16, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Praemium ob paginam nostram "Tabula Rosettana"[fontem recensere]

Hodie mihi confirmavit en:User:Witty lama paginam nostram (quam ego, Neander et Iustinus, adiuvante et Iacobo, hucusque confecerunt) praemio GLAM/BM laureatam. Gaudeamus igitur! Hic insero, ex illa pagina Anglica, aliqua de tribus paginis iam laureatis (praemia dua manent).

The Articles

Royal Gold Cup in English


The Royal Gold Cup or Saint Agnes Cup is a solid gold covered cup lavishly decorated with enamel and pearls. It was made for the French royal family at the end of the 14th century, and later belonged to several English monarchs, before spending nearly 300 years in Spain. Since 1892 it has been in the British Museum, and is generally agreed to be the outstanding survival of late medieval French plate. It has been described as "the one surviving royal magnificence of the International Gothic age", and to Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, "of all the princely jewels and gold that have come down to us, this is the most spectacular—and that includes the great royal treasures."


Epifania de Miquel Àngel in Catalan


Epifania és un dibuix en carbonet de l'artista del renaixement italià Michelangelo Buonarroti, datat circa 1550-1553. Està realitzat sobre vint-i-sis làmines de paper amb unes dimensions de 232 cm d'altura per 165 cm d'amplada. El dibuix consta de cinc personatges principals amb algunes altres figures menys definides al fons de l'obra. Després d'haver passat per diversos propietaris, el dibuix es conserva actualment a la sala 90 del Museu Britànic. Se l'identifica amb la referència PD 1895-9-15-518.


Tabula Rosettana in Latin


Tabula Rosettana est stela decreto de rebus sacris in Aegypto anno 196 a.C.n. lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta Rosettam Aegypti, urbem in delta Nili et ad oram maris Mediterranei iacentem, anno 1799 a milite Francico reperta est.

Inventio stelae, linguis duabus et scripturis tribus inscriptae, eruditis Instituti Aegypti statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris Napoleonis eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium) properaverant cum expeditione Francica. Qua a Britannis mox debellata, tabula Rosettana Londinium missa hodie apud Museum Britannicum iacet.


Witty lama mihi sic scribit: "Do you think you can have it appear on the main page of latin wikipedia THIS SATURDAY so it can coencide with the Royal Gold Cup appearing on the English Wikipedia [4] That would be excellent. I've asked the Catalans to do this too for their FA "Epifania". Si aliis placet, credo me posse prima verba Tabulae Rosettanae eo die in capite columnae alterae Paginae Primae nostrae inserere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:13, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certe te id agere placeat mihi.--Rafaelgarcia 16:34, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
εὖγ' εὖγε, νὴ Δί', εὖγε!!! Fiat ita! --Neander 16:48, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macte, Andrea! Ita facito. --Fabullus 18:17, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi quoque placet! IacobusAmor 18:25, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work, congratulations! Let us add Tabula Rosettana to the main page, of course! --UV 21:30, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procul dubio celebrandum ostendendumque est! Macte! --Ioscius 22:09, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Id nunc feci. An recte translatus sum "Featured Article"?! Si quis meliorare velit, recense s.t.p. {{Laudatio}} et {{PaginaLaudata}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just writing to say eugepae! --Iustinus 00:30, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to all. I could revert the changes to the Pagina Prima now, I guess; Tabula Rosettana is in any case booked as next month's Pagina mensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:31, 12 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asteroids[fontem recensere]

Remember the discussions at Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids that led to the creation of about 1000 pages on named asteroids (e.g. 29 Amphitrite) ... Was this a useful thing? Should we ask Robert to do another batch? Please comment at Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:31, 12 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Opus lyricum"[fontem recensere]

We have a plethora of articles using opus lyricum for the genre known in English as 'opera'. Its ahistoricity is problematic. For example, we learn that "Alcina est opus lyricum a Georgio Friderico Händel creatum"—but Handel wrote operas of a genre now universally called opera seria (not lyrica) and must have been surprised to have been told that he was writing the equivalent of opéra lyrique. Most operas were placed by their contemporaries in any of numerous genres more specific than "opera," which serves today as a useful catchall for the lot. Is opus lyricum the broadest attested term available? Thousands of potential articles are begging to be classified under a heading & concept that might include all the genres listed at List of opera genres, but opus lyricum (= opéra lyrique) looks too specific for them. IacobusAmor 11:04, 14 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki rankings[fontem recensere]

Check out this list I generated. I created a script that will list all the 1000 pages on vicipaedia along with their weighted sizes, which is helpful for improving our score! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:12, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks extremely useful. If it's possible to link in some way to the Latin article, even handier: failing that, even to link to the English one would be good. But meanwhile, yes, we can work with this! Are you certain of the scores? My calculation for Lingua Francogallica, which I was working on last night, made it a fair bit smaller than your figure at "French language"; but if these are the sizes they work with, that's all that matters, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bear in mind that the official formula ignores interwiki links and possibly hidden text. IacobusAmor 11:09, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole score calculation process confuses me. Take the page Marilyn Monroe. When I ran the script it gave me the following numbers: article_size=6513; langauge_weight=1.1; interiki_length=0; comments_length=24. And then, the script outputs the final scores to a *.txt file, on which it gives 7137.9, which equals (article_size - interwiki_length - comments_length) * language_weight. What confuses me is where that first number comes from. Right now in historia paginae the size says 7097, and if I copy the interwikis and paste them into the harenium it says there are 2885 characters worth. So where does the script get 6513 from? I don't know. I think we will just have to wait until the next "official" dump happens, and we can compare our numbers with theirs. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 13:25, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

41 000, 42 000, 43 000[fontem recensere]

Per me pagina no. 41,000 fuit 1021 Flammario, a Roberto Baruch die 18 Iulii creata. Multi asteroidum nomina e familia Camilli Flammarion dempta gerunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:50, 19 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si recte numeravi, pagina no. 42,000 fuit Ishtar terra a me nuper creata. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 19 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Et no. 43,000 fuit 2995 Taratuta. Ratio huius nominis nescio ... fortasse ad honorem Olgae Taratuta qui haud procul ab observatorio nata est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 20 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olga Taratuta?! Hahahae! Erat anarcho-communist! Verum dico vobis: ad honorem Evgeniyae Aleksandrovae Taratuta, quae erat auctor et doctor literarum. (vide etiam: hic) --Robert.Baruch 13:24, 20 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homines vivi who are dead on other wikipedias[fontem recensere]

I am about to ask de:User:Merlissimo, who was recently proclaimed a rock star by Jimbo Wales, to bring his newest tool to la.wikipedia as well – please see Vicipaedia:Mortui dicti and improve the page (possibly including moving it to a better title) before I ask de:User:Merlissimo to begin to create and update the list. Greetings, --UV 21:20, 28 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now asked de:User:Merlissimo to proceed. --UV 22:59, 30 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signum pro 1000 paginis?[fontem recensere]

Lingua Catala ut videtur proprium mille paginarum signum habet: vide ca:Gramàtica. IacobusAmor 18:48, 29 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serial killer[fontem recensere]

Vide paginas Marcellus Petiot, Damnatio ad furcam, Psycho (pellicula). Auxilium peto: "serial killer" Latine? In vocabolario meo serialis non est. Vobis iam gratias ago--Helveticus montanus 07:06, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nescio: est fortasse sensu verbi "habitual" similis; an habitual liar "homo mendaciis assuetus", an habitual adulterer homo stuprorum exercitatione assuefactus", ergo an habitual killer "homo trucidatione assuefactus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aut fortasse interfector frequens. --Fabullus 10:40, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simplicior, ergo melior! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pro serial in serial killer, linguae Romanicae idiomate in serie utuntur (asesino en serie, tueur en série). Serial killer, ut mihi videtur, est terminus technicus qui nec indicat tantum hominem interficiendi assuetum, nec tantum interfectorem frequentem; ita sunt etiam (inter alios) milites, et homines qui ambitionis politicae causa interficiunt, qui non serial killers vocantur. (Certe, serial killers sunt interfectores frequentes, sed non omnes interfectores frequentes sunt serial killers.) —Mucius Tever 14:02, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse occisor replicandus (in memoriam huius paginae: Zodiacus occisor)? - El Suizo 14:40, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
et productio serialis?, vide pagina DVD--Helveticus montanus 08:52, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ad interim serialis in his paginis delevi --Helveticus montanus 08:52, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum Cassell's, serialis non est verbum Latinum (Aevi Aurei). IacobusAmor 12:21, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vulnerable species[fontem recensere]

I'd like to direct your attention to this non-existent category. "Categoria:Vulnerable species" is automatically added to a page when putting "VU" (id est vulnerabilis) as the animal's Conservationis status. I don't know how to fix this. Help? :) Mattie 18:09, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed that specific problem (I believe), but there will be many more like this. This is because the template that we use for taxobox is just copied from the English wiki. Most of the text has been translated into Latin, but certainly not all of it. Therefore, it generates categories like the one you found.
If you are in the mood, you can translate any English text you see here into Latin! I was being lazy, so I just hid a lot of the other categories in comments. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 22:28, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you! Mattie 23:20, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macte![fontem recensere]

Congratulations, Vicipaedians! The newest results are in, and the Latin wikipedia is ranked 2nd in growth! We are now ranked 40th based on our 1000 pages, up from 46th last month! For the full statistics, click here. Let's keep up the good work! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:15, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! I couldn't have done it without your programming. We gained 1.39 points. We'd have won first prize for the largest monthly increase too, if only the Bulgarians (1.51) hadn't worked just a wee bit more assiduously. Third place seems to have been 1.00. IacobusAmor 03:43, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations to both of the above for the effort they've put in. A remarkable change in our rating. As you say, SZ, we must keep up the good work! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gaudeamus omnes ob laborem vestrum; me paenitet meipsum non posse partem maiorem facere.--Rafaelgarcia 08:44, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just raised Religio Christiana into the 10K class, gaining us 0.03 points, Ioscius is doing the same for Leonardus Vincius, and Andrew is on the verge of raising Caseus into the 30K class, gaining us 0.05 points. (I trust he's pleased that last month I left that one for him.) IacobusAmor 11:36, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but I'm not sure exactly what the standards are. Surely we don't get points for the space wasting pinacotheca on the Da Vinci page do we? It says its at 10,700something now. Is that all creditable space?
I think the pinacotheca counts. What doesn't count is hidden text and the interwiki links. Check out Secundus Zephyrus's wordcount estimates, which are proving extremely useful in this endeavor. Let's hope he can update them every week or so. IacobusAmor 12:07, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty more that can be done on that page. Wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't whip it up to a 30K without even digging too much, just translating. --Ioscius 11:58, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true of a lot of articles. Unfortunately, I'll still be pressed for time for another week or so. If I hadn't been, I'd probably have done enough to have beaten the Bulgarians last month. :( I still haven't added to my FB page some good photos I took in June. Time is slipping, slipping. IacobusAmor 12:05, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glance at Caseus again. Are we there now? I think so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. Macte! IacobusAmor 16:22, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honglou meng[fontem recensere]

I'm also nearly at 30K with Honglou meng (I hope you don't mind me stealing that one, Iacobe) and nearly at 10K with Marcellus Proust. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only thing that might be problematic in Honglou meng is the erasure of hidden English-language descriptions of numerous characters in the novel, making further expansion in that area difficult, as someone will now have to go back & forth comparing the English text & the Latin text word for word to find passages that can be added. IacobusAmor 11:46, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm very sorry, I did it -- as you understand -- because they make it more difficult to count! In any case we shouldn't be over-dependent on en:wiki ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source") however good a start it gives us. I'm working from printed, citable sources in expanding this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is above the limit now: agreed? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most probably. We'll know when our friend the Following Wind runs the program again. IacobusAmor 16:22, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:11, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dellium (Unionis Terra) vs. Dellium[fontem recensere]

I've just added to :en: an interwiki link for our stub Dellium (Unionis Terra), gaining us another 0.01. We've had the article for more than a year, but none of the bots noticed it, and the calculations have therefore been ignoring it all this time. :( IacobusAmor 12:02, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. On scrutinizing Dellium (Unionis Terra), one sees that it's been set up as an analog of de:Delhi (Unionsterritorium), which has no link to :en: and therefore doesn't figure in the 1000 pages: the article desired for the 1000 pages would probably then be just plain Dellium, which we don't have yet. Nevertheless, I suggest leaving the link at :en: until (a) Dellium is created, or (b) :la: abandons the :de: scheme in favor of the :en: scheme. IacobusAmor 12:28, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a similar problem with Bruxellae vs. Regio Bruxellarum Capitis, though the precise cause may be different: there it is certainly the English article that is out of step with nearly all the others. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some help appreciated...[fontem recensere]

Hello. In my enthusiasm, i've transcribed and uploaded a few roman inscriptions. I'm a (not all that accomplished) part-time student of latin, but i'm afraid i got in a little too deep. Anyways, you'd do me a great favor if you'd be kind enough to take a peek.

You are mostly correct. I would take it that Maxima is her name (not that she was the greatest servant of Christ: that would be too strong a claim). I cannot comment on the expansion "ANN(us) PL(us) M(inus) XXV D(eposita) P(ridie) VIIII KAL(endae) / IVLIAS" (except that it should be "ANN(os)") but you have translated this expansion correctly. I can't expand "REVC CONS". The length of the marriage should read "ANN(os) VII M(enses) VI". The inscription says specifically that she was "faithful in everything": it's a small thing, but I see no justification for placing "in everything" after "prudent" as in your translation. But I would like someone more familiar with inscriptions to look at this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find a Latin text (with better expansions) and a German translation here (I did a search for "amicabilis fidelis"). Notice that it isn't "pridie", I knew I didn't like that, it is "d(e)p(osita ante diem) VIII kal(endas) Iulias". And, very important this, the following phrase dates it to the year, it isn't the name of her husband: "Fl(avio) Probo iuniore v(iro) c(larissimo) cons(ule)". Note also that "cum maritum suum" in correct Latin would be "cum marito suo" [but this type of error is normal for popular Latin, no need to worry]. She "did" seven years and six months with her husband.
Maybe it shows that the word was then pronounced as if written maritu suu. IacobusAmor 11:39, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this the date is 525. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And que for quae probably shows the pronunciation. IacobusAmor 21:32, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:DM Allia Potestatis.jpg, a funerary inscription for a freedwoman. I've transcribed it as best i can, but i'm in over my ears trying to (faithfully) translate it. I'd very much appreciate anyone taking a stab at it.
You can find a full Latin transcription (possibly with normalised spelling: I haven't verified) on pp. 48-51 of Carmina Latina Epigraphica (you have to click on "Read online" and go to page 48: don't use the OCR version, that's full of nonsense as usual). I'm sure there will be English translations on the web as well ... Very useful image, thanks so much for uploading it and telling us about it!
Yes, here for example. It's probably better to work from this than to re-invent the wheel ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tjuus, Kleuske (the barbarian) 21:26, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice pictures. I'll have a look at the text later (but maybe someone else will get in ahead of me).
It would be nice to know where the inscriptions are from. I don't see that information just now -- perhaps I've missed something. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:Allia Potestas--Chris1981 12:33, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Even more interesting ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, so much for all the info. I had no idea the interest and significance of that text were that great, i just wanted to know what it said, as someone obviously had gone through great lengths to write it. I am planning (now that i'm firmly encouraged to do so ;) ) to upload some more images, since i went slightly mad with a camera in the Museo Epigraphico. 13:28, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Tell us and we will probably use these images in Vicipaedia articles! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


These are a bit older, but may be of interest

Salve. Kleuske 17:13, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C Aquilius Proculus[fontem recensere]

And there some othe things.

Kleuske 22:41, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nova Categoria pro ludis electronicis[fontem recensere]

Notavi nonnullas paginas de ludis electronicis, ad exemplum Battlefield: Bad Company, Halo: Combat Evolved, Fire Emblem, Super Mario 64, in categoria Categoria: Ludi directe inscripti sunt, quia, cum non computatrales ludi sint sed vero consolarum lusoriarum aliarum, in categoria categoria: Ludi computatrales inscribi non possunt. Fortasse creare oportet categoriam novam scilicet Categoria: Ludi consolae lusoriae aut Categoria: Ludi electronici. Tamen, hac secunda optione delecta, nonne ipsa categoria: Ludi computatrales fieret subcategoria illius novae categoriae? Opiniones ostendite, s.v.p. . --Poecus 14:03, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consentio, amice Poece, et categoriam Categoria:Ludi consolarum lusoriarum nunc creo. S.t.p. adde paginas idoneas in hanc categoriam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago! Addam paginas quam celerrime. --Poecus 15:48, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cos (demus)[fontem recensere]

Nonne paginae Cos (demus) et Cos potius in unum confundantur?--Utilo 22:58, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minime (me suadente) quia sunt demi tres in insula Coo. Iam nexum intervici addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:31, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Res ita est, ut dixisti, praepropere egi. Interim indicia fundamentalia (de tribus demis) in pagina Cos posui--Utilo 12:23, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Torero?[fontem recensere]

Vide paginam Michael Bosé et Lucia Bosé. Auxilium peto: "torero" Latine?

taurarius sive taurocenta (-ae) (fons: Georges)--Utilo 08:56, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taurarius videtur forma naturalis. IacobusAmor 13:59, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it's about time to have a short article on tauromachia?--Xaverius 14:45, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly, before tauromachia disappears off the face of the earth ... - Once again about the two possible Latin words (taurarius, taurocenta): Attestations seem to bee rare for both: taurarius: Corp. inscr. Lat. 10, 1074; taurocenta: Corp. inscr. Lat. 10, 1044. Of some interest (maybe also for an article on tauromachia) could be the following: THE GALLO-ROMAN MONUMENTS OF REIMS. 119: Nos. 24, 25, bull and toreador, a group that reminds us of Spain. The bull, with head lowered, butts at his adversary, who was called Taurarius or Taurocenta, for both names occur in the same inscription (Orelli, No. 2530). The movement of the animal is very similar to what we see on a coin of Thurium ; there a Victory appears flying down from heaven, with a palm branch and crown to reward the conqueror, as in the medallion of Hermes mentioned above. The man holds in his left hand a shield, curved and oval in the lower part ; in his right a short dart with a broad iron head, which would cause a large wound. --Utilo 15:18, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spanish torero would seem to have evolved from taurarius, not taurocenta. IacobusAmor 15:25, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could have "Taurarius (CIL X. 1074) aut etiam olim taurocenta (CIL X. 1044), est tauromachiae peritus, etc etc"--Xaverius 15:28, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It really doesn't make any difference to me if a taurarius or a taurocenta kills the bull! In my eyes these are to equally well (or badly) attested possibilities - natural or not, ancestor of a Spanish (torero) or of a rare Portuguese (Taurocenta m.: Aquelle que, entre os antigos, toireava a cavallo) word ...--Utilo 16:00, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000 paginae: comparing the wikis[fontem recensere]

Meta has a useful page of statistics comparing how the wikis handle the 1000 paginae (actually 1001 paginae because of a fluke). The median size of these articles (#501 in the list) is 2821 characters, but the median in Vicipaedia is only 2144. The top five articles in average size (and, some might suggest, those therefore perceived to be the top five in universal importance) are United States (#1), World War II (#2), Adolf Hitler (#3), Germany (#4), and Israel (#5). The rank of the third, fourth, and fifth surprises one, as does that fact that as many as 13 of the top 21 are nation-states. Throughout the list, an overemphasis on European culture and modern times is evident; however, as religions go, Islam (#12) far outranks Christianity (#84). As humans go, after Hitler, Jesus (#20), and Einstein (#22) comes Che Guevara (#25)—a biography that would surely be struck from the 1000-page list by any reputable historian, or at least ranked far below Stalin (#26), Lenin (#94), and Mao (#228). The most important literary figure is William Shakespeare (#46). The most important musical figure is Beethoven (#83). The most important topic of the ancient world is Julius Caesar (#48). The most important nonhuman animal is Cat (#42), which barely beats Bird (#47) but does much better than Dog (#146). Vicipaedia has four articles that, for their topics, are the largest in all of wikiland:

Cultura (#141); and fifteen other wikis exceed 30K
Infinitas (#847); and only :ca: also exceeds 30K
Sexus (#857); and only :ca: & :de: also exceed 30K
Polytheismus (#978); and no other wiki exceeds 30K

The least important articles (in average size)—and therefore, one might suppose, those in dire danger of deletion so that other topics might be added—are Large intestine (#996), Prose (#997), Length (#998), Nut (fruit) (#999), Newton (unit) (#1000), and Integumentary system (#1001).
We should perhaps consult this list when considering which pages to feature as paginae mensis. IacobusAmor 13:59, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting stats. Infinitas is so large in part because it contains some stuff that should probably more properly belong at wikitexts, but with the awesome celare/monstrare template, it was agreed to keep it in the article. That being said, as I was reading it, it could stand some rewriting and expanding for clarity's sake. Of course this was an FA almost two years ago, so doesn't help now.
Boasting the biggest article on sexus, cultura, and polytheismus, on the other hand, is pretty cool.
Do we know, by chance, how many of the 1001 articles have already been paginae mensis here? Surely we've covered a couple of them.
I'm agreeing, Jacob, that the list is somewhat lopsided. Of course, though, I've always agreed about that. Guess we just have to play into their game if we want the respect =]
--Ioscius 07:43, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what I get. 18 of our paginae mensis are on the 1000 pages list (listed with weighted size estimate from Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes):

  1. Cultura (148120)
  2. Bellum Civile Americanum (108705)
  3. Cuba (75097)
  4. Infinitas (43540)
  5. Physica electromagnetica (36361)
  6. Scacchi (30636)
  7. Liber (litterae) (22691)
  8. Tellus (21962)
  9. Caseus (21388) ← Brother Andrew has now boosted this one above 30K. IacobusAmor 13:07, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Mathematica (19538)
  11. Caesar (18860)
  12. Berolinum (17170)
  13. Ecclesia Catholica (16882)
  14. Nix (15312)
  15. Pulchritudo (12886)
  16. Pecunia (12082)
  17. Asteroides (10266)
  18. Carolus Marx (3034) --Ioscius 09:05, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's gratifying that only two of them are biographies, because (as I've long observed) biographies are a major locus of the POVness inherent in any list of this sort. Designing my own list, I might abolish the biographies, even that of the (evidently) most important human being in all of history: Adolf Hitler. He already figures in Fascism, Germany, Holocaust, Nazi Germany, World War II, and probably elsewhere. In contrast, neither Cambodia nor Pol Pot makes the list. IacobusAmor 13:07, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quod subter scriptum erat nunc reperitur in Vicipaedia:1000 paginae vel Disputatio Vicipaediae:1000 paginae
--Ioscius   20:03, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope no one minds that I moved all this to a dedicated page, it was getting a little busy in the Taberna! --Ioscius 21:02, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning U.S. Constitution Translation[fontem recensere]

From my talk page: Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to point out, just in case it was overlooked, that Section 7 of the translation leaves the following words out: unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.Andy85719 01:05, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not much of a US Constitution man, so I'll copy this to the Taberna. Continue here! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Xqbot's typographical judgment[fontem recensere]

Xqbot gratuitously inserts spaces in headings, changing "==Nomen==" to "== Nomen ==." The styleguide in :en: says these spaces are optional (and indeed, the trend seems to be moving away from using them), but Xqbot evidently thinks they're mandatory. Would a magistrate inquire? IacobusAmor 13:52, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De "and indeed, the trend seems to be moving away from using them": I just examined ten random articles in :en:, and found that seven had no spaces, and three had spaces. IacobusAmor 21:26, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that we vicipaedia contributors never reached a consensus on this point, see Disputatio Usoris:UV/2008#Page format and Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor#Sectiones paginarum. Greetings, --UV 20:06, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We didn't reach a consensus on whether to make one style or the other mandatory, and that leaves in place the default: that they're optional. Xqbot, however, is behaving as if one style is mandatory. IacobusAmor 23:42, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that I can understand Iacobus's feelings, if he's as fond of the "==Nomen==" style as I am fond of the "== Nomen ==" style! I'm ready to opt for making this feature of Xqbot inoperative, on condition that real optionality ensues from this, i.e. that nobody will manually change my edits in this respect. --Neander 20:53, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How shall we know? Are you going to mark them with a secret copyright notice? ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 23:42, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I have my secret wiles. :-) --Neander 00:00, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So - do we want to ask the pywikipediabot developers to change their bots so that (non)spaces around headings are to be left untouched by bots? This is technically possible, although up to now no wikipedia has opted out of the bots adding the spaces in headings. --UV 21:00, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I insert the spaces in my editing, but I've always felt that it's a matter of no importance. What is being proposed? Have I got to stop inserting the spaces? If a consensus thinks it's an important thing and those who do it must stop it, I won't oppose the consensus. But I might forget :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:36, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is no big issue per se but raises some questions of principle. Is Vicipaedia supposed to be a subsection of the English Wiki? Why is it somehow self-evident that we have to ape this pope? When speaking of tendencies, I suggest checking other wikis, too. --Neander 22:29, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two reasons come to mind: (1) more human computing power has been applied to the English wiki than to any other, and the result accordingly demands more respect; and (2) surely most programmers will agree that entia non esse multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Vicipaedia's median article among the 1000 pages has 2114 characters. If such an article has two spaced headings, that's four unneeded spaces, about 0.2 percent of the total. When we toss in other nonfunctioning spaces, like the ones in "br /" and "references /" (imagine each command surrounded by angled brackets), we might get to the point that half of one percent of the entirety of Vicipaedia consists of needless nothing. It's not a large percent, but there's something unhappily unparsimonius about it: it's untidy. IacobusAmor 00:01, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1): "...the result accordingly demands more respect". Yes, but not from us only. (2): A couple of years ago, one guy in the English wiki had rolled up his sleeves and begun to remove empty spaces and blank lines in wiki articles. When asked by an adminitrator to stop, he offered a similar Occam's Razorisque argument but obviously failed to convince. --Neander 00:38, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) I've worked quite a lot on en:wiki, as others have too. My view of it is that more "human computing power" (as Iacobus unattractively describes it!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:10, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea, perhaps even the phrase, comes from the work of Raimundus Kurzweil, who extrapolates from known rates of change to show that the world's machines will begin to have more computing power than the world's human brains sometime in the 2030s (the exact year was once predicted to be 2037, if I remember rightly, but of course this prediction will be adjusted as more information becomes available). Kurzweil still predicts that a single machine will pass the Examen Turing by 2029, but I don't see why linked machines couldn't do so sooner. IacobusAmor 14:14, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
has made it enormously bigger, and of course extremely useful to many people including us, but not demanding of more respect. We know those human computers don't all work in the same direction, and some of them do silly things, and others spend all their time contradicting one another. En:wiki helps as a source; it helps as a demonstration of one way to do things; sometimes it shows us what to avoid.
(2) (This argument may contradict the other. Who cares?) If the number of spaces in headings actually mattered to anybody, it would matter to the people who have to find storage space for en:, de: and fr:. They would issue a decree and send out space-eating bots, Wikipedia-wide. It would be easy to do. The fact that they haven't done this suggests that other issues worry them more. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:10, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canal/Canalis/Fossa[fontem recensere]

Right now en:Canal links to Fossa. But Fossa links to Canalis. Should this be changed? The only reason I'm concerned is because Canal is one of the 1000! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:26, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"+" in Morgan[fontem recensere]

What does the "+" after a word in Morgan's list mean? The legend at the top of the list doesn't explain it. IacobusAmor 14:05, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My copy of the adumbratio file says:
+ medieval word (first found 700-1400)
* modern word (first found since 1400)
Parentheses surrounding the above two symbols indicate that the word itself is ancient, but the meaning is first found in the medieval or modern period. Certainty about the first appearance of post-ancient Latin words is impossible; our indications are based on consultation of certain dictionaries (see preface) and a number of primary sources.
It looks like the use is similar but the exact boundaries may be different in the silva file (e.g. "+" being combined with a [s. 18] tag). —Mucius Tever 06:20, 14 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

numbers[fontem recensere]

Anyone knowledgeable in this area, feel free to lend a hand. What I have so far:

Anything lacking, anything wrongly labeled? --Ioscius 10:05, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of 'numerale' I would prefer 'signum numerale'. You might also want to add 'cifra' (late-latin), which the corresponding article now says is 'zero', but which in more recent latin mathematical publications is used in the sense of 'digit'. --Fabullus 10:56, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says cifra is Medieval Latin (from Arabic) and means 'empty, cipher, zero'. According to the OED, the term digitus was first used in English in the sense of 'each of the numerals below ten' in 1398—246 years before it was used in the sense of 'finger', so that usage goes way back and might as well be kept. Here's the first instance of the word in English: "Eche symple nombre byneth ten is Digitus : and ten is the fyrst Articulus." IacobusAmor 12:43, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A formatting error[fontem recensere]

Would some kind programmer (or someone more programmatically knowledgeable than I) look at Index generum operarum‎ and see if the formatting error in the table can be fixed. Mostly what should be the first column is printing as a block of text before the start of the table. The article won't be useful until this problem is solved. Aside from translations of headings, I pasted the commands at the start of the table exactly as they stand in :en:, where the table works fine. IacobusAmor 13:23, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem was that the article used {{Section}} but our Formula:Section worked completely different than en:Template:Section. I fixed the problem now. --UV 19:49, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lingua Romancica?[fontem recensere]

Videte, quaeso, Disputatio:Lingua Rhaetica!--Utilo 11:40, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help:English to Latin Translation[fontem recensere]

Hello! I need help on English to Latin translation. Please visit the page Usor:Amit6/c-en2la01 and translate that following list of english words to Latin. If you do the translations, please do not write those here and make a section on the page Usor:Amit6/c-en2la01 of your username and write those there. (eg. if your username is Example, then make a section named 'Example' on Usor:Amit6/c-en2la01 and write the translations there.) --Amit6 (talk) 06:58, 18 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask what You need those translations for?--Chris1981 13:19, 22 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conventicusculum[fontem recensere]

Videte etiam progressum ad Vicipaediae conventicusculum! --Alex1011 10:45, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De paginis non annexis[fontem recensere]

Iam sunt 2934 in Categoria:Paginae non annexae. Re vera puto permultas esse. Necesse est nobis ad paginas nexus addere!--Xaverius 12:03, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nunc sunt 4332. --UV 23:03, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Graffiti"[fontem recensere]

Mihi scribere de en:Banksy artifice placeat, sed quippe impossibilis facere est sine verbo Latino pro "graffiti." In omnibus dictionariis meis quaesivi et nihil inveni. Aliquis sciatne? Gratias ago! Mattie 20:37, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nescio si Latina lingua directe verbum quod "graffiti" sensu hodierno significet habeat: "graffito" ab Italiano graffiato exacte "incisum" vel "scalptum" significat, sed hodie, nisi fallam, nomine "graffiti" Anglicam in linguam defluxo etiam picturae coloribus in muris factae, non modo imagines incisae, indicantur. Forsan uti potes nominibus Imagines murales vel Picturae murales.--Poecus 14:39, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inscriptiones parietariae, pictura parietaria. —Mucius Tever 15:07, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etymologia secundum Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
Eng. graffito = It. dim. of graffio < graffiare 'scratch' < grafio 'stylus' < Lat. graphium
"Inscriptiones parietariae" et "pictura parietaria" videntur descriptiones, non vocabula idem declarantia. Fortasse forma quasi-etymologica: graphitum, ex graphium? IacobusAmor 16:36, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volumus fingere? ;) (Iam habemus graphitum, sed hoc certe debet esse plumbago seu graphites...) Vocabula e lexicis pro graffito, graffiti sunt graphio scripta (quod in google apparet, sed ineptum mihi videtur) et figura graphio exarata (peius!). Cur non dicamus tantum inscriptionem aut picturam, cum parietaria (vel aliqua re similari) addito si necesse est eam ab aliis generibus inscriptionum et picturae discenere? —Mucius Tever 19:04, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quia wall paintings non sunt graffiti? IacobusAmor 19:07, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nec est movement of the earth terrae motus. ;) Okius, video pictorem parietarium fuisse plus wall painter quam graffitistam. Nil interest, utique, in opinionibus meis de hoc nomine; quid fontes dicunt? Habemus nomen melius quam figuras graphio exaratas quod non formulam inhonestam {{fontes desiderati}} attrahet? —Mucius Tever 05:28, 22 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forsitan, ad ambiguitatem cum verbo graphitum vitandam, et ad etymologiam servandam, pluralitatem linguae Italicae adtinere possimusne? Ergo graphita, -orum. Mattie 23:30, 22 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, sed melius sit vocabulum et singulare et plurale habere. Ob hanc rationem, redirectionem graphitum nunc delevi. Igitur, si vis recreare sub hoc sensu, potes. Consentio enim: nobis necesse est distinguere graffiti et wall paintings; possumus "inscriptiones parietariae" dicere, sicut hic [5], sed denominatio brevior utilis erit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paginam creavi. Hanc disputationem movere in disputationem paginae "graphitum" debeam? Mattie 22:36, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide etiam quod alii hac de re iam scripserunt: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 7#Graffiti --Fabullus 11:19, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Greenhouse gases"[fontem recensere]

Morgan "caldariae herbarum cellae effectum" dat pro "greenhouse effect," sed de "greenhouse gas" tacet. Quid putatis? Cum enuntiatione ludere possimus, e.g. "gasium caldariae herbarum cellae effecto" (if that even makes sense). Mattie 22:21, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide quod de 'greenhouse' scriptum est in Disputatio:In conservatorio. --Fabullus 23:01, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... right :D Gratias tibi ago. Ergo "greenhouse" hic sit "solarium," et "greenhouse effect" → "solarii effectum" et "greenhouse gas" → "gasium solarii effecto." Sicne? Mattie 19:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quid sit "journalism"?[fontem recensere]

Does anybody have a good Latin term for journalism, the career of those whom Cassell's says to call actorum diurnorum scriptorum? Do we have anything more solidly established than diurnalismus? IacobusAmor 14:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

salve, Iacobe. "journalist" meo dictionario datur "diurnarius". Mea consilia sunt ad journalismum: diurnariorum acta, diurna scribenda. diurnalismum difficilem habeo. --Martinus567 19:00, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also diurnariorum ars vel opus. -- Ioscius 09:12, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amice, habetis diurnariorum ars, si vobs nomen displiceat, libenter mutatote! -- Ioscius 10:33, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

44,000[fontem recensere]

Pagina no. 44 000 fuit (si recte numeravi) Contagio sexu transmissa‎ a Iacobe creata! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woohoo! Milestone after milestone! IacobusAmor 03:13, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aerosol[fontem recensere]

What is Aerosol in Latin? Where does -sol- come from? Greek Wiki has Αερόλυμα, Aerisolutum (< solvere?).--Utilo 19:44, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think so, even if, usually, in chemistry -sol- is used to describe a substance made up of solid particules dispersed in a liquid (or in a gas, in aerosol case), but non properly solved, cfr en:solution and en:colloid. For that reason, I don't know if Aerisolutum can be used as a translation of aerosol...I'm afraid it could be taken as related to solutio. But then I'm not an expert in chemistry--Poecus 20:06, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Morgan habet:
.hom aerosol spray / Spray: aerosôlum*; nebulogenum* [Zlotnicki, Lex. Medicum, 1971] | aerosol spray can pyxis sparsoria* (HELF.)
-- Ioscius 22:48, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My starting point was geography (not the spray) - but of course it is the same word and "thing". I've just found in Aerosol: "To differentiate suspensions from true solutions, the term sol evolved", so Poecus is right (see above). I used this word in the Sahara - article and I'll change it to "aerosolum".--Utilo 09:39, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So to cover en:aerosol paint (spray paint), we could perhaps use pigmentum sparsorium or pigmentum in aerosolo? Mattie 16:43, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something like the latter is probably better here, because pigmentum sparsorium might be better for use in describing the process used by painters who work by spattering, sprinkling, dripping, and such (rather than by brushing), e.g. Jackson Pollock. IacobusAmor 17:23, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot to change sinitur to situs est[fontem recensere]

I found the word sinitur in a page dedicated to an African nation and I used it in a lot of pages. I remember to have check it meaning (been located), but now (thank to Andrew advise) I checked again but I do not find it again in my dictionaries. Perhaps it was my missunderstandig of an other verb. Therefore I ask you please, dear friends, if you can create a bot who will change "sinitur" to "situs est". Thank you--Helveticus montanus 19:56, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassell's: "sino . . . to place, put down, set down; only used in this sense in the partic. situs." IacobusAmor 19:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the same definition and limits in the use in Castiglioni, Aloisius; Mariotti, Scaevola. Vocabolario della lingua latina, latino-italiano, italiano-latino. Quarta editio a Petro Georgio Parroni curata (Taurini, 2007)., but also with the meaning located locus in media insula situs. (other possibilities: collocatus, positus)--Helveticus montanus 20:20, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For such a bot to work, we would need to know the gender of the predicate... if you look here, it's pretty tough to get a good algorithm. Sometimes the predicate is urbs, vicus, oppidum, pagus, I even saw lacus. I think this might have to be fixed by hand =/ I can give a hand.-- Ioscius 22:57, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore I see a couple legitimate uses of sinitur as in "to be allowed". -- Ioscius 23:01, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In checking these, I encountered one case where Iacobus noster made the change "sita est--->sinitur". Maybe there are others. I generally trust your Latin, Iacobe: is "sinitur" OK after all? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily! Presumably, however, sita est, as a perfect form, gives us the sense 'has been placed, has been left, has been located', not exactly 'is placed, is left, is located', and since the present tense is what we'd ordinarily expect in an encyclopedia (as opposed, say, to a report of explorations by an archaeologist or a surveyor), one suspects the grammar should be arranged so as to force the verb into the present tense. IacobusAmor 11:44, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I rather agree with that, and I am sometimes editing these cases so as to end up with a simple participle ("situs -a -um") rather than a full verb. The simple participle, though officially "perfect", feels to me almost timeless. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, just as in English, Latin has forms that are ambiguous between participial adjective + present tense verb and past participle + auxiliary verb — the case of 'situs est' is most likely the former, not the latter. —Mucius Tever 23:59, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000 paginae: 998 999 down?[fontem recensere]

Unless I've miscounted, 998 of the 1000 pages have been turned into stipulae or more, and the remaining undone topics on the list are Journalism and Mass media. Wouldn't someone like to complete the job? IacobusAmor 03:12, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I often take literary topics and I guess these almost qualify ... :) I'll maybe do them tonight if no one else has done them already. Did we agree on a term for "mass media"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Merriam-Webster, a mass medium is "a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people," and this adjective mass means "of or relating to the mass of the people": so a direct translation of 'mass media' might be something as simple as media publica ('the people's middles'); but since a mass of people (says Cassell's) is more particularly "multitudo, vulgus," maybe media multitudinis or media vulgi or even media vulgaria would fill the bill. In any case, titles can be changed. ¶ Also, since you love the French so, it's been a little surprising that you haven't leapt at the chance to boost the stubs‡ Francia, Lingua Francogallica, and Res Novae Francicae above 10K, not least because the job should be easy, each being less than 3K short, and the last being only 2375 short. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 10:34, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I remember now that we already have a category "Categoria:Media vulgatoria". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
‡Remarks in disputationes show that people over at Mediawiki regard any article shorter than 10K as a stub. IacobusAmor 10:37, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe, if we are sure our pages are good, we should shrug our shoulders about this. In some cases a proper encyclopedia article is much shorter than 10,000 characters, and Latin should be concise. It is a bad idea to write more than is needed. But of course I agree that the particular topics you mention deserve far more than that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiki articles present any of three levels of detail. (1) Many of ours are verbal hiccups, for biographies giving no more than name, birthdate, deathdate, country of origin, and claim to fame. (2) Some give that much, and then elaborate into a decent summary, either in one big paragraph (as in Abrahamus Lincoln) or a few shorter ones. (3) A few, after giving that much, go on past 30K characters. For the 1000 paginae, I'd suggest that the bare respectable minimum is level 2, and quietly the past few days I've been bringing pages up to that standard. Of the 1000 paginae, the effects of this effort will be to raise the mean & median, and in a few days, we'll be able to see these results in Meta. IacobusAmor 11:55, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was reflecting more generally (because I happened to remember one of the negative comments I saw about la:wiki recently, that many of its articles are "mere stubs"!) As regards the thousand pages, I agree with you whole-heartedly: all these topics (with the exception of two or three very ill-chosen ones) deserve at least 10,000 characters of text -- and your work and encouragement are having a big effect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, to put numbers into the argument, Abrahamus Lincoln right now has only about 4000 characters, yet it's not unrespectable, and if all 1000 pages covered their subjects with anything like that command, I daresay we should all be pleased. However, look at the ten shortest of these articles (Metallurgia, Longitudo, Dialectica, Fossa, Oceanus Antarcticus, Digestio, Pandemia, Bellum civile, Lacus Tanganica, Cogitatio) and despair! IacobusAmor 13:03, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, but even the big wikis can disappoint. Information technology, for example, is way too short (and not well thought-out). If I had my druthers (is that Southernism/ruralism intelligible over there?), I'd cut 10 to 20 percent of the present terms and substitute new ones, but we have to work with the list we've got. IacobusAmor 11:54, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At diurnariorum ars I went with media communicationis socialis which has plenty of hits. Feel free to change it and the title of diurnariorum ars. -- Ioscius 10:44, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it's an attested form, but the first seven Latin hits at Google seem to be from or inspired by official Roman Catholic texts, showing little classical respect; the catechism even uses the medievalism moderna instead of hodierna. IacobusAmor 11:05, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, they are all accounted for now. Two articles were not linked from the English articles, so the program (mine and the official one) would not have found them. But I've corrected the links now, and I will run it again! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:16, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woohoo! That makes us the third wiki, after English & Simple English, to have articles for all 1000 terms (of course other wikis could have joined our number already, as this month's overall calculations won't be done for a few days). IacobusAmor 15:27, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

corrigendum peto.[fontem recensere]

salvete omnes. Res me nondum facta, cui nomen est Foedere Trianonense, peto emendationem, si essent errores. --Martinus567 09:26, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecce Formula:Capsa[fontem recensere]

Formulas "Capsa asteroidis", "Capsa satellitis", "Capsa linguae" et alias habemus. Et nunc formulam Capsa habemus! Ita capsas facile creare potemus. Io! --Robert.Baruch 18:43, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diesel?[fontem recensere]

Estne verbum pro oleo Diesel? petroleum Dieseli? Gratiam ago. - El Suizo 14:56, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaticana dixit Diselianus, -a, -um. --Robert.Baruch 21:00, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cum paginam scribas: Long or short?[fontem recensere]

Just curious: when you write an article for Vicipaedia, do you go all the way and write an article every bit as long and detailed as, say, the corresponding English Wikipedia article? Or do you write a few sentences or paragraphs and then move on (and why)? (I try to make mine as detailed as the English version, except with many more references) --Robert.Baruch 20:58, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different people have different styles. You may not have noticed, but the past two months I've been beefing up our articles on the list of 1000 articles every wikipedia should have. (See Vicipaedia's standing here.) Hundreds of our articles on the list are nothing more than verbal hiccups, as you can see in Secundus Zephyrus's helpful report here. Next month will be busy for me, so feel free to take up the slack. Time for this month's improvements to be counted in the next update at Meta will expire in a few hours. IacobusAmor 21:26, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sometimes write Vicipaedia for fun, and sometimes use it as a notepad for writing that will be published elsewhere. If using it as a notepad, I always (like you) aim to make the links and references better than you could find on English or other wikis, but I don't always extend the text beyond a stub. I'm thinking, if I've made the sources available, I or anyone else could come back to this later and extend it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 1 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't publish as much as Andrew, so I often write about things that 1) I have a personal curiosity about; or 2) I think would be funny/unexpected at a Latin Wikipedia. Ludus patibuli is like that. Indeed I purposefully overwrote Pong cervisiale, which is just itself kind of an unexpected article, until it got so big and thorough that it was pagina mensis plausible (if not worthy... =]). Others you write because there are interesting citations in Latin. Cannabis or Scacchi for example. These, too, like Andrew said, are a notepad that I can access anytime anywhere. Animalium soni is like that. I can be teaching/researching in whatever civilized country and have an awesome number of attested Latin animal sounds, anytime I want.
I always try in some way to improve upon the English version. If that means a better structure and more length and depth, ok. See Infinitas for an example of that. At the time of pagina mensis, it was pretty hard to argue that it was better than the english article. The english article has since improved. Sometimes, though, time constraints get the best of you, and this improvement over the english version amounts merely to better description, less pov, or less logorrhea within a single paragraph. All these improvements are subjective, as well. For instance, I think some sections of our Napoleo I (imperator Franciae) are better than at english, but just because they are more to the point and less wordy. They say about the same thing otherwise. Sadly, I just don't care enough about Napoleon to add the content from the missing sections to really whip that article into the shape that the rest of the english article is in. I have maiores pisces frigendos, if you know what I mean =]
Maybe next month, to help out Jacob's humbling and awe-inspiring progress in the 1000 pages battle, I'll come back to the emperor, but I'm working on Pinus atomica now, this time only because I found some cool pictures on commons. Jacob's work does bring up a point, though, and that's that sometimes you write an article for the sake of the project. Andrew's caseus started out like that; what kind of wiki doesn't have an article on cheese? Now it's an impressive tome with excellent information in it.
All in all, it's a hard question to answer. Mostly I use vicipaedia to get better at Latin, to work in an intellectual community, and to help the cause of living Latin by writing an encyclopaedia in it right under the eyes of anyone who says we cultivate a dead language. May we keep doing it for all the reasons mentioned above. -- Ioscius 21:55, 1 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
for me it's not a choice. Actually my Latin knowledge is poor and therefore I prefere to create short pages with few sentences hoping also that somebody will add more information and can easily correct them if there are some misstakes--Helveticus montanus 18:53, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually I don't like writing stipulae, so I try to add as much information as I can to the pages I'm working at. My favourite topics for the pages usually are about things I'm personally interested in, and looking for additional references and information is for me a way to enlarge my knowledge about them. Sometimes in Vicipaedia's contributions I also find a useful notebook for subjects I really like or I'm working/studying about, for example Pirata et Henricus Morgan. I'm a student so I try to check and improve my grammar knowledge by reading and contributing in Latin.--Poecus 20:06, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logo v2[fontem recensere]

Why this wikipedia logo wasn't switched to verson 2 with interface update? I mean this one: Wikipedia-logo-v2-la.png --Orange-kun 00:04, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Say more? I still see a logo. What should we do/have done? -- Ioscius 05:59, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see this old logo Fasciculus:Wiki.png instead of this: Wikipedia-logo-v2-la.png, why?

--Orange-kun 09:02, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent question. I have no idea. -- Ioscius 09:49, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, since our front page was totally redesigned a couple of years ago, Vicipaedia has been using its own locally defined logo rather than the standard one defined for us by Wikimed. Frankly, if I may offer my own humble opinion, the lettering on the current old one is sharper/easier to read than the new san serif one you propose. Do you prefer it? What are the merits?-- 09:53, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On my screen, the globe on the right looks grayer & less vivid than the globe on the left. Likewise the letters. Also, the use of italics (on the left) makes a bolder statement. IacobusAmor 12:33, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looking at en.eiki, it seems grayer/less vivid/smaller is what they were tryng for so as to be distracting from the main page in the new format.
The choice was already made by Usability Initiative, new UI shall use new logo in all wikis.--Orange-kun 21:56, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check your "attitude" at the door. That is not the way to speak to colleagues who have just had a new interface suddenly imposed on them without a warning or word of explanation. -- 00:58, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which attitude do you talking about? Wikimedia has updated design of its flagman project, all lang sections shall do the same. Relax and take some lessons of good manners.--Orange-kun 08:32, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for your information, the problem arose (I think) with the auxiliary "shall", which is best avoided unless one is giving orders. Clearly you intended no impoliteness, Orange-kun, and thank you for the update. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't an order, it was an advice to keep wikipedia integrity. I didn't say "must". By the way English is not my native language, give me some credit. I didn't made any contribution in this language wiki, since I don't know Latin yet, but I did many in the others. I'm a wikigraphist and I keep images in many wikis. P.S. I have updated logo v.2 increasing space between letters in Vicipaedia mark. I guess it's better now.--Orange-kun 07:24, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the newer one's a bit less readable, but it looks much cleaner to me. It's got my vote for sure. Mattie 02:38, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view, we should switch to the new logo, for visual consistency with all the other wikipedias. Switching the logo is easy: a magistratus just has to upload Fasciculus:Wikipedia-logo-v2-la.png as File:Wiki.png locally (and adapt the image description page accordingly). --UV 23:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you do this please? Or find a way to display logo directly from Commons, like in Englsh Wikipedia--Orange-kun 07:26, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any objections against switching to the new logo, for the sake of visual consistency with the other wikipedias? --UV 20:07, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would appear from the statements above that you have no choice in the matter. After all you will or you shall do it, right? It doesn't seem that there is any choice in the matter for you/us underlings.-- 12:01, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You sound a little bit like an agent provocateur, O honoured To show our undying gratitude to Wikimedia for continuing to host our beloved Vicipaedia, if they would like us to switch to the new logo I think we should do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, they are doing a good job. I switched the logo. Greetings, --UV 23:12, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new format[fontem recensere]

How do we insert thinspaces now? And how do we abrogate the program that requires an extra keystroke (answering a yes/no question) when we want to return to the previous screen after having copied the sourcetext into memory or made a tentative edit that we want to abandon? (When did we discuss the introduction of the new format?) IacobusAmor 03:29, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iabobus points out an OBVIOUS disadvantage to the new interface. Why in the world are they making people click one MORE time to do something??-- 09:55, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I have understood you both correctly ... This is a momentary nuisance but it can be altered. Go to preferences and "mensura capsae verbi" (don't ask why). Uncheck the last checkbox in the list. Save. ... Did I understand you correctly? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, using the monobook skin seems to eliminate the newly imposed burden of answering a yes/no question, but it still doesn't restore the ability to insert a thinspace. Could some of our magistrates find out who imposed the new format and ask them where the insert-thinspace key is—and if it's really no longer here, tell them to restore it? (Maybe it's just hiding and I haven't found it yet?) IacobusAmor 12:56, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the thin space command was made redundant, at least for numbers, by Rolandus. You only have to put a regular space and they get converted automatically when the page is viewed.--Rafaelgarcia 16:25, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not on my screen they don't! Go to CFA, and see the sentences "Terrestris confinium area CFA circiter 1 900 000 000 agrorum est. Alaska, attiguis CFA a Canada abiuncta, maxima civitas est, 365 000 000 agrorum." I've pasted this here from my screen. In the code for that file, the first number (right this minute) has thinspace commands, and the second number doesn't. Both on my screen, and when pasted from there to here, the space between the first "000" and the second "000" is wider in the number lacking the thinspace command. See? 000 000 vs. 000 000. (Take taberna into editing mode if you want to verify this.) So now that we have the new format, how do we insert this hidden thinspace? IacobusAmor 17:52, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find some answers here and some more here. A similar change was made on en:wiki some weeks ago.
As regards our important selves, the change took place without fanfare at 5pm UTC on 1 September -- or, at least, it was supposed to. For the proof see Phase V Deployment. Thought you'd be interested ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the thinspace, someone else will have to help you. Thinspace doesn't display correctly on either of the browsers I use, so I leave it alone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the problem isn't clear to you then. I suppose we can continue to type the characters &-thinsp; (without the hyphen of course; curiously, the nowiki parameter doesn't work with the real code) and they'll continue to appear as such in the code, but we used to have a button that, when clicked, inserted an actual thinspace. I have a vague notion that Rolandus or UV may once have gone through some texts and converted the &-thinsp; codes to actual thinspaces. Certainly groups of long numbers with thinspaces in them are easier to edit without the clutter of repeated instances of &-thinsp;. IacobusAmor 13:30, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We didn't. "Volunteers" working with Wikimedia did.-- Ioscius 05:58, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive me if this is not relevant after all. But although the "Vector" skin, slightly improved, seems to have been imposed on us, it is possible to go to one's preferences, choose "Conspectus", and re-select the monobook skin, which is the familiar one. Or maybe click on "Take me back". But I haven't tested that -- not sure yet which way I want to go. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
How to abrogate the program that requires an extra keystroke (answering a yes/no question) when you want to return to the previous screen: As Andrew explained above: Click on Specialis:Preferences, then on "Mensura capsae verbi", then remove the checkbox near "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes" and click on "Servare praeferentias".
How to insert a thinspace: I do not think that there ever was a button that inserted a thinspace character, only a button that inserted the   entity.
There was such a button, and the result of its action—an actual thinspace!—is visible right now in this very file. Go into editing mode. Now go to the paragraph above that starts "Not on my screen they don't!" Look particularly at these zeros:
000 000 and
000 000.
An actual thinspace has been inserted in editing mode (via that key that used to be at the top of the editing screen) into the middle of the first six zeros, but not into the second six. See how much easier on the eyes that is in editing mode than 000 000 would be? IacobusAmor 01:23, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently, there still is a thinspace button below the "Servare hanc rem" button in the edittools box (however, the edittools box has become mostly redundant to the "Characteres speciales" part of the new toolbar, so we may one day discuss about removing the edittools box altogether). If you would really like to return to the old toolbar, you can do so at Specialis:Preferences → "Mensura capsae verbi" → "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". --UV 23:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you mean disable (rather than enable). When I disable the new format, what seems to be the old toolbar returns, and a thinspace key is indeed there, in its old place—but it inserts the characters that make a thinspace, not (as it used to until this week) an actual thinspace. To my eyes, the change is a disimprovement. Maybe Vicipaedia had a technological advancement that the Meta people didn't know about (and have now overridden in favor of the earlier technology)? IacobusAmor 01:37, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new format has introduced (at least to my screen) visual clutter that for a month or two has been appearing only when I've been engaging the editbox in the English wiki. For example, in Tamaulipae, the editbox ends with a list of interwiki links, as we expect, thus:


But now below the editbox—in the space between the editbox and the words "By saving, you agree to irrevocably release. . . ."—appears this:


Is there any way to get rid of it? IacobusAmor 13:20, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not appear in my browser. --UV 23:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears in mine. It started to appear when I was editing at :en: some weeks ago, and it started to appear here when the other changes were introduced—so its cause almost certainly lies in something the Meta people did, not in anything I've done at my end. IacobusAmor 01:45, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progressus Augusti 2010[fontem recensere]

Macte iterum! The official 1000 paginae tabulations are in, and we have grown +2.08! Our new score is 19.68, just under 20.00! We are now ranked 38th, up two places from 40th last month! Full statistics apud Metam. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 00:48, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacob will be dismayed to see that, while we did indeed grow +2.08, the bulgarians grew +2.09! Nonetheless, great work everyone. See what else we can do in September! -- Ioscius 05:58, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Luck of the draw! The Punjabi wiki, in 88th place, took the first (virtual) prize with 2.20. In many months, 2.08 would have been enough to take the first prize; in some months, our 1.39 for July would have taken first prize; all that was needed in April 2009 was 0.92. IacobusAmor 11:27, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The higher one gets in the list, the harder it is to attain the same percentage increase. Or am I wrong there? Whether I'm right or wrong, the steady achievement of the Catalans continues to amaze me. They set a fine example. They got two of those GLAM/BM prizes, as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Font puzzle[fontem recensere]

Can anyone identify the difference between Cassis Αgrisiensis, where Chris1981 created an article just now, and Cassis Agrisiensis, to which I have just moved it? Links to the former require a redirect in order to reach the latter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the redirect does not contain the Latin script capital letter A but some other letter that looks very similar (probably a Greek script capital Alpha). I deleted the unnecessary redirect. --UV 23:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, UV! I knew there'd be some such explanation but I couldn't pin it down. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Shower" as in bath[fontem recensere]

I know that lavacrum means specifically "Bath" as in perhaps bathtub and that balneum means "public bath, bathroom, or bath" but I can't seem to find a word with the modern meaning of "Shower" (bathtub or shower stall with shower nozzle to clean the bather.) There is the word "Pluvia" of course for a rain shower, maybe Pluviatrum or Machina Pluviatria? I rly have no idea, any help is greatly appreciated, thanks 14:48, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morgan gives the following:
.bthr shower / lavatio pluvia [Soc. Lat.] (HELF.) ]] balneae pensiles (f. pl.), lavatio in aquae deiectu, aquae super cadentes (f. pl.), cataclysmus, lavatio pluvia (LRL) ]] balneum pluvium, balneum pensile (CL) ]] pensiles balineae, cataclysmos (LEV.)
.bthr shower tube with head / tubulus mammatus (ALB. I)
.bthr shower: room with shower / Zimmer mit Dusche: conclave cum pluvio [Eichenseer] (HELF.)
Balneum pluvium seems about what you were after. -- Ioscius 09:31, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago. Balneum pluvium, bene auditur auribus meis :) 23:07, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old European names for New World's places[fontem recensere]

Dear Friends, somebody has proposed to change the name of Buenos Aires district Monserrat in Mons Serratus. Should we use the Latin names of the European original places also if we do not have a proof of the existence of the use of the Latin names for the New World places (e.g also Palermo etc.?--Helveticus montanus 18:47, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I prefer to be "conservative": only transfer the Latin name to the new place if we have a source for doing so. So I would stick with "Montserrat (Buenos Aires)". Others may disagree ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the New World place is named for an Old World place that has a good Latin name, then obviously the Latin name carries over; hence Athenae (Alabama), Londinium (Kiribati), Londinium (Ontario), Mediolanum (Ohium), Novum Eboracum, Nova Hantonia, Roma (Georgia), Roma (Ohium), etc. IacobusAmor 21:58, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commands etc.[fontem recensere]

Dear Vicipaedians, perhaps it would be useful to invest additional energy in some of the more frequently used 'meta' translations. They are the face of Vicipaedia for newcomers, who might arrive with doubts as to the quality of the Latin used here. One text that has bothered me for a while is this: Conventum aperire. Num rationem non habes? Eam crea. Cookies potestatem facere debes ut conventum aperire. Nomen tuum usoris: ... Tessera tua: ... If I did not know the English model, this would be thoroughly incomprehensible. Leaving the grammatical mistakes (num non, ut + infinitive) and stylistic incongruities (eam, nomen tuum + usoris) aside, are we really agreed on the terminology? How is one to guess that rationem habere is to mean 'to have an account'? What about the miraculous cookies potestas? Is a conventus really what one is looking for when signing in? For all the difficulty of translating computer terms into Latin, maybe there is room for improvement.--Ceylon 18:22, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly there might be no word in Latin for "cookies". And while we could use a long circumlocution... Maybe better to take an already existing latin word with vaguely similar meaning, or latinize an existing Romance word. 22:47, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There sure is room for improvement. A while ago, I started a glossary Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary to make translations at least consistent, but surely better translations can be found for some terms. Translations are best added to translatewiki: directly. Greetings, --UV 22:48, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It unfortunately looks like one needs to be more wiki savvy than I currently am in order to introduce such changes through translatewiki:.--Ceylon 09:39, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'cookies' you probably can't do anything about, at least not without a source to satisfy VP:NF. (Besides, you might assume that more people coming to Vicipaedia are more used to classical Latin than obscure appropriations of ancient terms or neologisms and would just scratch their heads in confusion if faced instead with something like 'dare potestatem vestigandi debes'—at least, on the OP hypothesis that as the face of Vicipaedia, people will start there.) —Mucius Tever 11:33, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The assumption on Mediawiki has been that all language versions ought to have all their system messages in the "target language". This is an ill-informed and discriminatory assumption (I think), because many people all over the world work multilingually and other people should not decide for them that they are wrong.
Currently this benighted Mediawiki attitude doesn't matter much to us (though it could one day): currently it only matters to those proposing a new language wikipedia, because this is now one of the hurdles they have to jump.
For us (as for the Esperantists), since none of our users have this as their first language, it would really make more sense to ensure that users can easily read all system messages in their first language. We don't actually compute in Latin most of the time, and who has the right to tell us that we ought to? However, since the great majority of our messages already are in Latin, I'm not recommending changing that now! In some cases, as with "cookie", we surely have to adopt the foreign word. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But as soon as we adopt equus Troianus for Trojan horse, the floodgates will be open, and something like crustulum for Cookie will inevitably pour through! IacobusAmor 13:28, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as long as they are in Latin, my preference would be for a kind of Latin that passes a basic test of grammar and style. I don't mind much whether 'cookies' is translated or integrated as a loanword, as long as it is integrated in a way which Latin allows. I am on holidays right now so I cannot check dictionaries, but for some elementary improvements, what about: Conventum aperire. Nondum inscriptus es? Hîc te inscribere potes. Crustula electronica (quae Anglice 'cookies') tibi erunt admittenda, si conventum aperire volueris. Nomen usoris: ... Tessera tua: ...--Ceylon 15:00, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For encyclopedia entries, to be conservative, we can insist that the english borrowing "cookies" be the lemma, but I don't see the harm in a description such as the one ceylon proposes for the interface instructions. The point is that it should be intelligible latin, which his verison is but the current one, as he pointed out, obviously isn't.
Myself, I only wish that there was a button next to each command, etc, that sent you to the appropriate place at the mediawiki site which allowed you to change that command. THe way it was when I last went there, you had to create a separate account there, get editing rights, and then search for the command; some of these listed by you would even be separately translated segments so that several edits of entries would be necessary to fix all the problems; then the improved result didn't appear in your wiki for weeks until they did an update or you had to request a special update, so you wouldn't know for sure that you fixed the right thing.-- 21:31, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Facebook tried this to let people translate its interface into their own language (instead of hiring professionals to do it correctly...hmm...). Anyway, it was and still is a bug-ridden mess. Half the time the link never work. And half of the links simply don't exist. There are a few very annoying Latin translations on Facebook that make my blood boil (e.g. someone set it up to add an "a" at the end of every female friend's lastname in the newsfeed), and I can't even find out how to change them!--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:36, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trouble in my opinion isn't the bugs but that it is SO difficult and time consuming and unrewarding on balance and sometimes seemingly impossible to get the bugs fixed. A better system is needed desperately in my opinion.-- 03:48, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De respirando[fontem recensere]

Duae saltem symbolae respirationem tractare videntur, q.s. Apparatus respiratorius et Systema respiratorium, quae suam quaeque categoriam sibi poscunt. Veron' binis symbolis et categoriis opus est? Ego paene nihil de his rebus scio. Ideo sciscitor. Neander 16:04, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions of idiom: English to Latin[fontem recensere]

The syntax of 'a family of small to average lizards'?[fontem recensere]

The locution familia parvarum . . . lacertarum would seem OK as the basis of the structure, but then what about the phrase left out, 'to average'? Insofar as a word for 'average' (presumably here medius, -a, -um) relates to lacertarum, it wants to be genitive; but insofar as it relates to ad, it wants to be accusative. My guess at the moment is familia lacertarum a parvis ad medias ('family of lizards from small [ones] to average [ones]'), but that seems wordy, and it differs from a similar pattern used with numbers (see query below). IacobusAmor 14:02, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow, familia lacertarum a parvis ad medias doesn't sound right, mainly because it's rather untypical of Latin to attach prepositional phrases (here, a parvis ad medias) as attributes to nouns. I guess I might say familia lacertas et parvas et mediocres complexa (without the directional "a X ad Y" scaling). Neander 15:22, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overnight, in Gekkonidae, usor has changed this to familia Squamata magnitudinibus parvis ac mediis (representing a range, remember, as rendered in English as "from small to medium"). This parvis ac mediis seems to solve the problem, but doesn't it change the meaning? It would certainly do so if the adjectives numbers instead: 'from three to four meters', spelled "3–4 m," would become tres ac quattuor metra—i.e., sometimes three meters, and sometimes four meters, but never any value in between. IacobusAmor 14:00, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The syntax of 'a lizard 3–4 meters long'[fontem recensere]

It seems almost too easy to copy the English pattern and write lacerta 3–4 metra longa, but the pattern of 3–4 metra longa seems well attested. How, however, should that be pronounced?—lacerta a tribus ad quattuor metra longa? IacobusAmor 14:10, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider first 'a lizard three meters long'. Two syntactic patterns are available in Latin: either lacerta tria metra longa or lacerta tribus metris longa. Given this, there's some degree of flexibility in saying 'a lizard 3–4 meters long'. One way to put it would be lacerta longa a tribus metris ad quattuor. Neander 15:59, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that; but in reading biological Latin, we meet phrases like these (quoted in Stearns):
Frons caespitosa, ca. 7–8 cm. alta (Liagora tetrasporifera)
Caespites minuti 1–2 pollicares rosulati (Nitophyllum berggrenianum)
Arbor 40–70-pedalis (Abies georgii)
ramos 1–2 gerens (Oryza angustifolia)
So how are those phrases to be pronounced (written out fully)? IacobusAmor 13:51, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps others would like to express their opinions, but here goes
Frons caespitosa, ca. 7–8 cm. alta
Frons caespitosa septem aut octo cm alta (a septem ad octo cm alta)
Caespites minuti 1–2 pollicares rosulati
I'm afraid I'm not able to say this. In my Latin, pollicaris is 'one thumb thick, long, whatever'.
Arbor 40–70-pedalis
Again, to me, pedalis suggests 'one foot long, high, ...'. I'd say "Arbor a quadraginta ad septuaginta pedes alta". [Later addition] I forgot the pattern bi-, tri-, decempedalis. Accordingly, 40-pedalis is quadragintapedalis. Neander 13:12, 21 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ramos 1–2 gerens
ramum unum aut duos gerens // unum aut duos ramos gerens.
But perhaps I'm the wrong guy to mess around in botanical Latin. Perhaps I'm too orthodox. :-) Neander 15:00, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meridionalis non est[fontem recensere]

Meridionalis? Habemus 547 paginas in quibus hoc verbum est, sed secundum Castiglioni non est verbum Latinus (australis, meridianus). Vere etiam occidentalis et orientalis non sunt (ad occidentem versus, ad orientem versus). Quod agere debemus, omnes has paginas mutare?--Helveticus montanus 21:51, 19 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

meridionalis est verbum Latinum (cf. Firm. math. 2, 12), sed antiquitatis posterioris. Verbis "australis" vel "meridianus" uti melius esset (Ciceroniano quidem).--Utilo 22:30, 19 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many levels deep should taxonomic categorizing go?[fontem recensere]

To the existing categories in certain articles about reptiles, nameless user today has added categories for multiple taxonomic levels. I had thought the tradition was to list (in most cases) only the lowest-level taxonomic category, so I've just deleted some higher-level ones; but since several more such articles loom, and one doesn't know whether their number might still be increasing, I'm stopping for advice. Perhaps someone skilled at categorizing will compare the recent states of Varanidae and issue an edict? IacobusAmor 12:31, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I added this query, has added three more articles with categories using multiple taxonomic levels. Also, I've checked the English, Esperanto, French, German, Italian, and Spanish wikis, and they tend to list only a single category, perhaps the lowest-level one. Likewise Vicipaedia's articles on birds and fishes. Are the reptiles to be special cases? IacobusAmor 12:41, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of newly augmented articles is now about twenty. Also, categories are being created without their interwiki links. IacobusAmor 12:50, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now nearly thirty. The new categories are most welcome, but one worries that much of the categorization at the bottom of articles will have to be undone yet again. Also, there may be conflicts between the newly imposed taxonomy and that in some of the other wikis. IacobusAmor 14:11, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work has continued. All the comparative information I've seen suggests that most of the new cataloguing—in which an entire family tree's worth of links has been inserted into each of about thirty articles—needs to be undone. IacobusAmor 20:54, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, supercategories ("higher-level categories") should not be added where an article (or category) is in a specific ("lower-level") subcategory. --UV 22:55, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, UV. I'll delete the extraneous categories when I get a chance. IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toxicofera[fontem recensere]

User raises an interesting point about Brother Andrew's category Toxicofera: "Toxicofera dicuntur nonnulla Squamata, non pisces!" And what is the category referring to? It has no interwiki links. IacobusAmor 12:36, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose I must be "Brother Andrew" :) This is a long time ago and the category has dropped from sight till now. I think my intention, meanwhile forgotten, was to group the creatures that we now call (more clearly) "Animalia venenosa". Anyway, not a zoological classification but one relating to human uses/avoidances. As far as that's concerned, the category could be deleted and its contents merged with Categoria:Animalia venenosa. If the category name is now being used in a different way, the question of my intention can be dropped: just consider whether it's useful or not. Sorry I can't investigate further -- I'm travelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 21 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aiuto per traduzione latino medievale[fontem recensere]

Buon giorno a tutti e scusate se scrivo in italiano. Sono un contributore della itWiki, specializzato nelle voci di storia istriano/quarnerino/dalmata. Sto preparando un nuovo articolo, dedicato alla questione della lingua a Ragusa (Dubrovnik): un antico e dibattuto argomento. Ho bisogno di un aiuto per la traduzione più corretta possibile in lingua italiana di un brano in latino medievale. Il brano è il seguente:

Prima pars est quod in consiliis nostris ad aren
gerias nullus possit uti nisi lingua
veteri ragusea aut latina vulgari sine licentia
domini rectoris et minoris consilii. Que
licentia non possit dari nisi sit
capta pars in minori consilio et capta
ballotando controparte, et qui contra
fiunt cadat ad penam ipp. unius.
Et dominus rector ad penam sacramenti dare
debeat pro debitoribus contrafacientes in cancellaria.
Secunda pars est quod ***.
Prima pars est de vetando lingua[m] sclavam
in consiliis nostris ad arengerias. Per XVIIIJ contra XV.
Secunda pars est de non vetando.
Prima pars est quod nullus possit ad arengerias uti lingua
nisi latina ragusea sub pena ipp. unius
pro quolibet contrafaciente et qualibet vice. Et dominus rector ad penam sacramenti debeat dare pro debitoribus in cancellaria contrafacientes. Per XXJ contra ***.
Secunda pars est quod quilibet possit uti lingua ragusea et italica.

Ho mantenuto la suddivisione delle righe del documento originale, per cui alcune parole risultano spezzate (aren/gerias). Si tratta di una deliberazione del Senato raguseo sulla lingua da adottare nei Consigli della Repubblica. Ringrazio fin da subito chi vorrà aiutarmi.--Presbite 07:33, 21 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I can't write in Italian! This is a very interesting topic. I see that you already have a translation of the first part of this text in your "sandbox". My impression of the whole text is that all proposals in these consilia had to have a defined counter-proposal before a vote was taken. In this case the initial proposal was set aside before a counter-proposal had been formulated: maybe it was impossible to reach consensus on the form it should take. So there is no vote. Then the matter was discussed in two stages:
  • a proposal to forbid the use of Slavonic [Croatian, I guess] and a counter-proposal not to forbid it. The proposal passed.
  • a proposal to use "Ragusan Latin" only (I see from your sandbox that William of Tyre also refers to the language as "Latin") and a counter-proposal to allow both "Ragusan Latin" and Italian. Again, the proposal passed, and with a larger number of positive votes, though the number of negative votes is not recorded.
So the result was to exclude both "Slavonic" and Italian from the consilia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:49, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to prepare a first translation to Italian, but I'm not really used to understand medieval latin. In particular, Andrew, can you explain me that penam ipp. unius? Especially that ipp.: in other documents I've also found ypp.. I fancy it stands for such kind of money or coin.--Poecus 20:31, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"penam" would be "poenam" in our spelling (penalty, fine). I don't know what "ipp." is, but I agree it seems likely to be a coin or a sum of money. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your kind help and sorry for my poor English. In fact, I know very well the meaning of the text: I need the most accurate translation possible, --Presbite 16:01, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you know the meaning of the text, you already know the best translation of it. IacobusAmor 16:46, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

because this text has been discussed for 400 years between "Italians" and "Croatians". "Ipp". means "iperpero": is the name of the currency of Ragusa (from the greek ὑπέρπυρον). Best regards.--Presbite 16:01, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here the translation (in Italian) of the first part of the text:
La prima parte (pars: in Italian also "proposta") è che nei nostri consigli per le arrin
ghe (aren/garias) nessuno possa usare se non la lingua
antica ragusea o la latina volgare senza permesso (licentia)
del signor rettore e del minor consiglio. Che
il permesso non possa esser dato se non sia
presa la parte nel minor consiglio e presa
ballottando la controparte e quelli che contav
vengano (contra/fiunt) cadano nella pena di un iperpero.

I have some problems here (in bold):
Et dominus rector ad penam sacramenti dare
debeat pro debitoribus contrafacientes in cancellaria.
Secunda pars est quod ***.
Prima pars est de vetando lingua[m] sclavam
in consiliis nostris ad arengerias. Per XVIIIJ contra XV.
Secunda pars est de non vetando.
Prima pars est quod nullus possit ad arengerias uti lingua
nisi latina ragusea sub pena ipp. unius
pro quolibet contrafaciente et qualibet vice. Et dominus
rector ad penam sacramenti debeat dare pro debitoribus
in cancellaria contrafacientes. Per XXJ contra ***.
Secunda pars est quod quilibet possit uti lingua ragusea et italica.--1Presbite 16:15, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ciao io sono italiano. Sto lavorando alla traduzione del testo...di alcuni termini non sono sicurissimo, ma credo di poterti aiutare nella maggior parte dei punti che non sono chiari. Scriverò qui la mia traduzione appena la finisco, stasera o domani al massimo.--Poecus 18:53, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Ecco la traduzione:Reply[reply]

La prima proposta è che nei nostri consigli per le
arringhe nessuno possa usare che la lingua
antica ragusea o la latina volgare senza il permesso
del signor rettore e del consiglio minore. E che
il permesso non si possa dare se non sia stata
accettata la proposta nel consiglio minore, e accettata
andando ai voti con la controparte, e coloro che contravvengano
incorrano nella pena di un iperpero.
E che il signor rettore debba comminare la pena dell'ammenda
ai contravventori come debitori in cancelleria.
La seconda proposta è che ***.
La prima proposta è di vietare la lingua slava
nei nostri consigli per le arringhe. 19 a favore e 15 contrari.
La seconda proposta è di non vietare.
La prima proposta è che nessuno possa usare per le arringhe altra lingua
che la latina ragusea, pena il pagamento di un iperpero
per qualunque contravventore e in qualunque situazione. E che il signor
rettore debba comminare la pena dell'ammenda
ai contravventori come debitori in cancelleria. 21 a favore e *** contrari.
La seconda proposta e che chiunque possa usare la lingua ragusea e quella italiana.

Non sono esperto delle istituzioni a cui si fa riferimento né del latino medievale, perciò ho interpretato per lo più sulla base della sintassi. Posso sbagliarmi, ma sit capta pars a mio avviso più che "si sia presa parte" (nel senso di partecipare) è inteso come "si sia accettata la proposta", e questo non soltanto perché pars è già usato in questo senso nel testo, ma anche perché il successivo capta ballotando controparte, retto dallo stesso sit ha più senso se "la proposta viene accettata votando" piuttosto che "si sia presa parte votando". "Debitori", debitoribus, è più chiaro se inteso come "obbligati al pagamento": infatti spesso in latino debitor, usato in senso assoluto, vuol dire anche "obbligato".
Spero di averti aiutato.--Poecus 21:06, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastico! Era proprio quello che mi serviva. Grazie mille a te e agli altri amici e scusate il disturbo.--Presbite 22:43, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nessun disturbo. Anzi è stato divertente conoscere questa interessante questione della lingua, di cui prima non sapevo. --Poecus 14:15, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

45 000[fontem recensere]

Si recte numeravi, Veveyse, ab anonymo amico Helvetico creata, est pagina no. 45,000! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paginas "miliarias" in tabula historica apud "Vicipaedia Latina" addidi ... si potui repperire. Fortasse alius quis lacunas implere potest? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 25 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uraquaria?[fontem recensere]

Back in March, our Pantocrator seems to have invented the term Uraquaria on the basis of Paraquaria, a name that in its own article shows no attestation. According to the Ministry of Tourism, "Uruguay’s name, comes from the Guarani language, and it means 'River of the Painted Birds.'" If this is true, an association with Latin aquarius, -a, -um (alluding to the contents of the river) is suspect, and the -a- of -aquaria probably shouldn't replace the -u- seen in Spanish Uruguay. Thoughts? IacobusAmor 21:12, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't know about the painted birds, but Pantocrator may well have had a good source for Uraquaria. I found some just now via Google and have footnoted one of them on the page.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the best choice: that should probably be discussed at Disputatio:Uraquaria if there's a problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well,posting here attracts more attention and thus opinions and discussions, then you can copy and paste the whole discussion at the Disputatio when it is about to be archived (Just put a note that it was copied from the Taberna.). This happens many times at the English wiki.--Jondel 11:34, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I remind my Guaranì correct, there are two possibilities for the meaning of Uruguay
  1. River of snails (uruguà = snail, y = water, river)
  2. River of birds (Uru = local bird race, gua = from/to, y = water, river)
Anyway, the water approach is correct but I'd rather treat Uruguay as a non-translated eigenname. El Suizo 09:11, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way, these etymologies suggest that the indissoluble basis of any Latin word has to be urugua-,  and (respecting the root y 'aqua') probably even uruguai-; hence a Latin formulation like Uruguaia, or conceivably its phonetic cousin Uruquaia, would seem to be in order, and anything like Ura- would seem so disrepectful of indigenous phonetics & semantics as to be unacceptable. IacobusAmor 11:23, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a strong view. Noli fingere, however: Uraquaria is footnoted, so the immediate need is to footnote a preferred alternative. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"contest"[fontem recensere]

As I recently confessed to Neander, I'm on a bit of a syntax kick these days, and am keen to (I'd like to say develop but given the paucity of our material on the subject I have to say=>) build our categories on the subject. I have no problem doing this by myself, but certainly welcome any and all input as it's, as Neander said, "ager novalis, (quem nemo) Latino aratro tangere ausus est".

For first input, I'd like to invite suggestions for two sentences from the literature. I'd like to make syntax trees for use as examples in arbor syntactica concreta and later when I write X-bar theoria. Therefore I'd like two really excellent sentences from actual authors.

The first one should be relatively short and simple: 5-10 words, no subordination, no hyberbaton. A simple SOV sentence with maybe a prepositional phrase.

The second one can be longer, let's say 10-20 words with some hyberbaton, a conjunction, maybe a correlative, Something fancier.

Both should be beautiful, sage, wise, elegant, interesting, clever, poetic and/or all of the above.

So if you have a good sentence in mind feel free to suggest it. I'll take the best 2. Gratias! -- Ioscius 11:08, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One entry in each class:
  • Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere. Tacitus, Annales 1.1.
Sadly OSV, Andrew. Otherwise a great pick! -- Ioscius 11:40, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Patricia gens Claudia (fuit enim et alia plebeia, nec potentia minor nec dignitate) orta est ex Regillis oppido Sabinorum. Suetonius, "Tiberius" 1.1.
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Start simple? Ego reges eieci. Cic. ad Her. 4.53.66. IacobusAmor 11:58, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duplicated in a sequel: Ego reges eieci, vos tyrannos introducitis. IacobusAmor 11:58, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation[fontem recensere]

Salvete! My friend asked me to help her with Latin pronunciations for a play she is in. She told me that the character is a well-educated (think doctor or lawyer) man in 1600 France. I know there are many different types, but what kind of Latin pronunciation would be most accurate for this location and time period? Any advice would me much appreciated. Gratias vobis ago! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 04:22, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SZ's question is very interesting. Among our friends maybe Usor:ThbdGrrd would have an immediate answer. Of course you also have to think how French was pronounced around 1600 -- certainly in a very different way from today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it's too interesting a question. I would suggest reading a few texts from the area and the time period in both Latin and French but beyond that haven't a clue how to help. When I speak Latin I try to be understood grammatically, and I'm usually teaching students who are either Americans or studying in America, so I've never really had to worry about accent problems. That said, I have a few Latin speaking Austrian and German friends, whom I understand with greater difficulty. Good luck!-- Ioscius 09:52, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By 1600 in France, ae and oe had been [e] for more than a thousand years. Also, ce and ci had been [se] and [si], respectively, since the thirteenth century—none of this Italianate excelsis = "eggshell sees" business. The g in ge & gi was "softened." Vowels before two or more consonants were shortened (e.g., cĕnsus, not the classical cēnsus), and vowels in open syllables were lengthened (e.g., tēnet, not the classical tĕnet). Since the English pronunciation of Latin after 1066 came under heavy influence from Norman usage, W. Sydney Allen's chapter "The pronunciation of Latin in England" is pertinent to your question. IacobusAmor 12:07, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias, Iacobe! That is enough information to get her in the ballpark. She doesn't need it to be perfectly historically accurate, but I think now I can get it pretty close. I will check out the reading, too.--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 21:31, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err, in line with this, is Athena pronounced At'hena? The 'th' here as in 'at home' not as in 'the' or 'thick'? Gratias .--Jondel 05:22, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In real classical Latin, say in Cicero's time, "th" was surely pronounced as in 'at home'. The sound [θ] as in 'thick' was unknown in classical Latin (and maybe had not yet developed in Greek at that date either). I expect someone will come along and contradict me ...
Many modern speakers say Aθena, however. It's your choice, Jondel! [Andrew Dalby]
I like to straddle the fence on this and v. I can't bring myself to use a full on American style w, it just makes the language sound bizarre and weak in my American head. I also realize that a full v isn't exactly historical. So I go for an in between sound, sort of like I do for th. -- Ioscius 09:52, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The [w] value of consonantal u must be assumed for the classical period" (Allen, p. 42). Allen (p. 41) cites several examples, including that of the seller of Caunean figs, whose cry "Cauneas!" Crassus should have heeded as an omen: "Caue ne eas!"—a pun hardly possible if v weren't a semivowel like [w]. Allen says the first evidence of v = [v] comes from the first century, but v = [w] lasted in some quarters at least into the fifth. Surely in seventeenth-century France, v was [v]. IacobusAmor 12:20, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By not exactly historical, I was making a gross understatement. On an academic level I certainly realize the nature of consonantal v in classical times. Just on a personal level, hard to get it into the idiolect. Also might have to do with growing up hearing Italian.
Of course the first evidence of v = [b] is from the first century too. -- Ioscius 12:59, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You want to look at Latin regional pronunciation, which has a French column. As a general rule, before the recovery of classical pronunciation, it was typical that Latin words were more or less pronounced as though they were regularly-spelled words in the native language of the speaker—a Frenchman would pronounce 'sopitos vigiles excitaverunt' with more or less the same set of rules he would use to figure out how to pronounce 'les crapêts ventieux pontaient raditallement'. (Or consider how English-speaking people still naturally pronounce words like 'Hercules', 'agenda', and 'Arabia' today.) In such a case, 'th' would just be plain /t/. —Mucius Tever 13:53, 2 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Font rendering[fontem recensere]

I would be glad if others would glance at the two tables at Birmania#Subdivisiones Birmaniae. I find that my browser cannot read Burmese script in Wikipedia pages unless fonts are specified (as is done by Formula:My, which I have just copied from en:wiki). I have altered the Burmese script in the third column of each table so that I can now read it. I have left alone the Burmese in the fifth column (no political undertones intended), with the result that I still cannot read it. The question is, have I helped or harmed other people's ability to see this script? Please tell me, after my edit, whether you can or cannot see Burmese script (a) in the third column, (b) in the fifth column of those two tables. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:33, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read/see next to nothing in that page. -- Ioscius 22:57, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quando utimur praeterito inperfecto, quando quidem perfecto praesenti?[fontem recensere]

salvete! Ecce questio cognoscibilis: quibus differunt duo tempora praeterita? --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 06:43, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"SEQUENCE OF TENSES. In complex sentences, a primary tense in the main clause is followed by the Present or Perfect Subjunctive in the dependent clause; a secondary tense by the Imperfect or Pluperfect (§ 483)." is perhaps what you are looking for...there are special rules depending on the type of clause. Read more here: [6] (See links at left under "syntax of the verb")-- 08:56, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mos Vicipaedianus est tempore praesenti aut perfecto in definitionibus lemmatis uti. IacobusAmor 12:08, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Translate - Latin[fontem recensere]

I don't know if anyone's seen this yet: [7]

It's bad in several ways. "France, England, Denmark, and Spain are countries in Europe." -> "Francie, Anglie, Dacie et Hispania in Europa terras." For some reason "Hecatonchires" gets rendered in English as "Knute", and "dancing" in Latin as "siara". Something to watch out for people using, I guess. —Mucius Tever 22:27, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Muke, take a look at Disputatio:Google and the recent edit by Ornil in the page itself. What do you make of the blog entry? -- Ioscius 22:53, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's great news for Latin nonetheless. Google Translate's new languages always begin with horrible quality and then improve over time. At the moment it's most useful for skimming through old Latin documents if you aren't very good at Latin yet. The "contribute a better translation" button to suggest a better translation than the one being given is one of the ways this happens. Mithridates 22:52, 1 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some new "translation" utility?[fontem recensere]

I've noted three cases in the last three days of new pages (of more-than-stub length) containing utter nonsense masquerading as Latin, all three from different sources on different subjects. It makes me wonder if somebody (such as Google) is newly promoting a translation utility? If that's the case, we won't be the only sufferers. Anyway, please keep an eye on new pages from unknown sources, and be prepared to add {{Non latine}} if the text is too bad or too boring to be worth saving. Pages with this template are deleted in due course; but pages that aren't marked in this way can survive for some time, and they do our reputation no good at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google would indeed be the culprit. See two sections upward.—Mucius Tever 16:41, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, to see how the program is doing, I tried a few phrases that popped into mind:
Roses are red, violets are blue.
Roses rubent, violae blue.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Tan oporteat timor ipse timor.
God save the queen.
Salve regina.
God rest ye merry, gentlemen.
Cubes Dei iucundum est, iudices.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Fac homini aliis, ut vis, fac te.
Is this a dagger I see before me?
Hoc pugione video coram me?
Let be be the finale of seem.
Sine ut videtur de ultimo.
I wish I was in de land ob cotton. Old times dar am not forgotten. Look away, look away, look away, Dixie Land.
Utinam de terra in ob Sanctórum. Olim meminisse Dardanio am. Recede, parces, parces, Dixie Land.
How doth the little busy bee improve each shining hour!
Quomodo melius parva inter apis splendens hora!
They also serve who only stand and wait.
Qui eis etiam operari nisi stantes exspectant.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Protest facit femina nimis, credo.
Who will free me from this turbulent priest?
Quis me liberabit de hoc turbulento sacerdotem
Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote the droghte of March hath perced to the roote.
Aprili quod Whan cum in soote shoures droghte perced Martii ad me roote.
They're all fails, though a few get some phrases right. The program's English-to-Latin lexicon is incomplete (it doesn't recognize blue, dialect spellings, and premodern spellings) and mixed up (it thinks cotton has something to do with saints), and its Latin syntax is strange. IacobusAmor 17:39, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's Google, so it doesn't use a lexicon per se — my understanding is that its system is mostly corpus-based, not dictionary-based. This can lead to remarkably strange renderings, such as 'burning bright' translating into "Latin" as brennyng. —Mucius Tever 19:42, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This morning, it renders "Tyger, tyger, burning bright, in the forests of the night" as Tyger, tyger ardens lucida Silva nocte. IacobusAmor 10:21, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, even humans find it difficult to translate poetry ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but a decent program would have no more trouble with the "literal" sense of that passage (from Blake) than for:
Paper, paper, turning tight, in the dances of the kite.
Mary, Mary, looking good, in the shadows of the wood.
Blackthorn, blackthorn, hanging low, in the branches of the sloe.
Catfish, catfish, swimming cool, in the shallows of the pool.
Mailman, mailman, running late, in the service of the state.
Und so weiter. (OK, so the last isn't precisely parallel: service is singular where the pattern wants a plural.) Here are Google's translations of those passages, respectively.
Paper, paper, conversus stricta in choro milvus.
Maria, Maria, respiciens bonum in tenebris nemus.
SPINA, SPINA, demisso in ramis BRABILLA.
Catfish, catfish nantes frigida per vada gurgitis.
Mailman, mailman, nuper cursu in re publica.
It correctly matched the repetitions at the beginning, but then why did it cut the comma after the second catfish? It missed the syntactic parallels of the rest of the passage: each of its translations of the middle part is syntactically unique: conversus stricta (two past participles, not in agreement with each other), respiciens bonum (present participle + noun maybe accusative), demisso (past participle, dative or ablative), nantes frigida (present participle plural + adjective singular not in agreement unless catfish is neuter, but it isn't; see Siluriformes), nuper cursu (adverb + supine ablative). Vada gurgitis shows that the program recognizes that the last word might want to be in the genitive, but it doesn't know that milvus, nemus, brabilla, and publica aren't in the genitive. Let's wait for the beta version! IacobusAmor 13:38, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000 paginae: October[fontem recensere]

Dinosauria nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 10:18, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mille et una noctes nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 14:51, 5 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tellus (planeta)‎ nunc >30K = +0.05. IacobusAmor 10:48, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricardus Wagner nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 13:35, 7 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colonialismus nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 01:55, 9 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Francia nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 13:11, 9 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gustavus Mahler nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 13:14, 13 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buddhismus nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Religio Islamica nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 13:17, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Immanuel Kantius nunc >10K = +0.03. IacobusAmor 15:17, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc mense, media? (Anglice means) et medianos (medians) mille paginarum augebamus. Media ab initio Decembris 2009 ad initium Octobris 2010 fuerunt 4781, 4816, 4829, 4877, 4899, 4918, 4937, 4983, 5154, 5642, 5704. Mediani simul fuerunt 1960, 1973, 1982, 1984, 2016, 2066, 2087, 2071, 2114, 2595, 2602. Novos numeros mox viderimus. IacobusAmor 12:16, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suverenitas : a new instance of a ringum-like word ?[fontem recensere]

The article Suverenitas, for its only attested source, cites page 144 of the pdf of Morgan's lexicon, but that page is devoted to terms for mail, and no attestation of this "suverenitas" is jumping out at me there. Am I missing it? or what? And if it's there, is its source reliable & respectable? ¶ The etymology given in the article derives the term from a French noun supposedly derived from a French adjective supposedly derived from the Latin adjective superanus. Wouldn't that make the expected Latin back-formation superanitas instead? IacobusAmor 12:13, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, suverenitas is a bad word, and one might think Morgan would have reached the same conclusion. I have a feeling someone tried to insert this word in Vicipaedia once before ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it does occur in that glossary (with a warning asterisk, and some alternatives) on p. 114, so that was just a typo in the reference. Here's the entry:
  • .gvt sovereign / superanus+ | sovereignty summa (rerum) potestas; summum imperium; suprematia* [Latham]; suverenitas* [s.18] (HELF.)
Whether we choose this word is now up to us, however. I'll copy this discussion to Disputatio:Suverenitas: please continue there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

technical question[fontem recensere]

I d like to translate "there is a wolf in the mirror" on Latin ,using in+accusative.Now ,there is a specific case that i could use :with state verbs (esse,habere,adesse) associated with an idea of previous action,real or imaginary (it is a sub-case of in+accusative).The sentence should be "Lupus in speculum est".The question is : if i omit the state verb "est"(Lupus in speculum), that rule is still valid or not? Thank,please,motivate answers.--LupusInFabula 16:16, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Existential verbs (e.g., English 'there is') tend to come first in Latin sentences. For the prepositional phrase, in + acc. is the wrong choice; you want in + abl. "There is a wolf in the mirror" = Est lupus in speculo ~ Est in speculo lupus. IacobusAmor 16:48, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but in this case shouldn t be a stative verb? (not on English ,but on Latin ).Like "to be in a place"?--LupusInFabula 17:14, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if Latin admits in+acc for stative expressions, expecially omitting the verb. However, even if it does, it would be very rare, and the reader would rather understand the much more common sense of movement, so lupus in speculum -> lupus in speculum (adiit, venit etc...), the wolf comes to the mirror. There is a case which admits in+acc whit esse, adesse, in the sense of esse in conspectum, to appear to and be in sight.
E.G. Nec prius surrexisse ac militibus in conspectum fuisse, quam, etc., Suet. Aug. 16
But in this case conspectum requires the idea of "to come to sight", so perhaps it could be partially correct to say Lupus adest in speculum, the wolf has come to sight in the mirror. However, it would keep having a sense of movement, not state. --Poecus 20:25, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for contribution,I found the rule on my dictionary,it says :in+acc ...1.3)stative expressions ,"with stative verbs (esse,habere,adesse) that include the idea of a previous action\movement(real or imaginary) ",in: in alicuius potestatem esse ,to be(= to be, as a consequence of a previous action,accomplished by the subject or by a third person) under control of someone (Cic),...other examples.I agree with you that probably no latin author has used the rule 1.3 in that way ,maybe I misspelled in English,but my question would be,I think that i respected the rule with the exception(???, the rule says nothing about verb omission even if all examples of 1.3 rule have a verb ) of verb omission,now ,the omission invalidates the rule?if the rule is respected,then it is possible ,theoretically,to built the sentence "Lupus in speculum ",even if strange or irregular, or not? again thanks a lot.--LupusInFabula 22:29, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the rule you have just cited indicates that in speculum would mean that the wolf has just arrived at the mirror in the sense of walking or crashing into it, or that the wolf suddenly appears as an image in the mirror (when just a moment before it wasn't), or that the wolf is visible inside the mirror after just having jumped into it physically in some science fiction/fantasy sense. It would not simply mean in english "the wolf is physically inside the mirror" or "the wolf is visible in the mirror" which is the phrase that Iacobus took it to mean. So you'd better specify in what context and with what specific meaning you want this strange sentence to be taken in.-- 11:17, 7 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, and no ordinary native speaker of English can take 'there is a wolf in the mirror' in any other way: the wolf is in the mirror, and that's that. The gloss & example cited by LupusInFabula may support in + acc. with the sense 'there has come to be a wolf in the mirror', but that's not the idea that LupusInFabula was asking about. One may perhaps wonder why LupusInFabula wants to use the accusative. IacobusAmor 12:14, 7 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is just a curiosity to know if it is ,theoretically,possibile,(applying the 1.3 rule )to built a sentence like it (the sentence is not important),using in+acc instead of in+abl.Although it is strange,irregular etc etc way. It s all here. We need 3 thing :1) stative expression ("he is under control of someone") 2) stative verb ("is" ,it should work as stative verb) 3) "simply" the idea of a previous action/movement real or immaginary ( he is under control of someone ,so i can imagine (idea of previous action) that "before" he was not under control of someone, so something happened(ergo ,a previous action),because "now" he is under control of someone (it s a consequence of a previous action)). Now I think that i should write the verb because otherwise the rule 1.3 is not more valid.If i omit the verb I should use in+abl.But the rule 1.3 says nothing about the verb omission,so maybe it is an unwritten rule ( something as a mutual exclusion), if the verb is written i should use in+acc, if the verb is not written i should use in+abl, is it so? Thanks --LupusInFabula 20:48, 7 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's difficult to see any purpose to this discussion, Lupus, unless it's to prove to some authority that when they told you you had made a mistake, you hadn't really! Maybe simpler just to say yes, OK, I was wrong. Anyway, that's just my guess, so forgive me if I too have made a mistake.
I cannot imagine a world in which "Lupus in fabulam", without a longer explanation around it, would make sense to a Latin speaker. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:03, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IacobusAmor got it. In alicuius potestatem esse---> from lt to english---> you simply translate it as "to be under control of someone",but the sens is "it has come to be under control of someone".In the same way "there is a wolf in the mirror" ,classical interpretation (in+abl) from en to lt ---> lupus in speculo est."There is a wolf in the mirror " with the sens of ---> there has come to be a wolf in the mirror--->(in+acc)from en to lt--> "lupus in speculum est (or est?)".it s only another interpretation.c y

But a false one, I think. With "in + acc." you expect a verb implying motion, or at least change. "lupus in speculum est" would be imprecise or faulty Latin (I think) because "est" is not a verb of motion. "In alicuius potestatem esse" would be imprecise or faulty Latin (I think) because "esse" is not a verb implying change. But I expect someone will quote a text showing I'm wrong :)
Anyway, note my last sentence: whatever you think of the rest, that sentence is important. Latin is not a constructed language in which you work out how to speak by building your own interpretation of what the grammar books allow. If you do that, you're taking the wrong route. Latin is a language with a wonderful written corpus, and if you want to write or speak it, you must also read. That way, you learn to speak or write the way that Latin authors did. Sometimes, in the process, you will find that the grammar books haven't got it quite right yet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But even then, Andrew, just because an author wrote it once doesn't make it great. A quick look around the internet will see that very fluent native speakers make what we grammar sticklers think of as egregious mistakes. If we said that, just because an author once wrote "your stupid" when they should have written "you're", we were licensed to propagate the same usage, I think we could agree that that, besides being silly, would also be dangerous to the future of the language. Finding one usage of "lupus in speculum est" to contradict the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions, even) of usages of in + abl... -- Ioscius 09:48, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point, mi Iosci. I was lulled into ignoring it because the Latin writers that I'm talking about wrote, and were eventually put into print, before the instant-Internet instant-publication age. So Livy himself, and his secretaries and his booksellers and his early-modern editors, have eliminated grammatical errors of that kind before they could reach the texts we read. Today there's often no safety net, and even if there appears to be, the secretaries and booksellers aren't always as skilled as they were. Just an hour ago I received and read through a newly published article by me whose last word is (in my view) a painful solecism, one that I could never have typed. When a copy-editor changes all right to alright, one can only exclaim: O tempora! O mores! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, don't blame me! It's not a change I'd make. However, if you expressed an objection, the press may rightly have asked why, if preserving all right is an issue of supreme importance to you, you submitted the text to a house that prefers alright. Submitting anything for publication can seem like making a pact with the devil. ;) IacobusAmor 12:16, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An even better point, if I may make an example of your error. We humans are fallible beings: How many books have you written, Andrew? Surely you know that its alright and not all right, but that time, who knows, slip of the mind, a passing distraction, the odd glass of wine, anything, and you make a very small mistake. On the one hand o tempora o mores, on the other hand, we humans type and write some half a billion words in a lifetime. Can we really be expected to quality control every single one of them? (I forgive you, even if the copy-editor doesn't ;]) We see some of the medieval writings that weren't as rigorously edited as Livy's writings were, and there are a lot more errors of the sort. -- Ioscius 11:51, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's like I tell my students of English in Slovenia all the time, when they ask a question like, "Can I say "The car of John", instead of "John's car"?". This mirrors their own expression avto od Johna. Now of course English grammar permits the construction "The car of John". Using it, however, would be a blind and stubborn resistance to the fact, and this is I think what Andrew is getting at at the end of his last post, that we simply don't talk like that, grammatical as it may be.
Well, but if it's grammatical, native speakers must be able to contrive its use in sentences that native speakers would accept. How about this one? "When you said it was 'John's car', did you mean it was the car of John the butcher or John the baker?" Or of course anything relating to "the reign of John XXIII" and "the head of John the Baptist." Not to mention (while we're waxing religious) "the Gospel of John." Further, we might consider "the City of St. John" and "the City of John Day." Google turns up "the township of John John," evidently part of Port of Spain, Trinidad. IacobusAmor 12:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bottom line is that if you were to turn in the sentence "Lupus in speculum est." in school, Latin teachers would not consider the fanciful theory outlined above; they will mark it wrong. -- Ioscius 09:48, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understood, the grammar permits it, but it s wrong,thanks.--LupusInFabula 10:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but I guess I would have to add (and this applies also to the example "the car of John") the grammar permits it because it's an imperfect or incomplete grammar. An ideally good grammar would tell you it's wrong, and why it's wrong. I have had the same experience as Ioscius (I teach English to French people sometimes) and I have not been able to explain, in all cases, where one uses the possessive and where one uses the preposition "of". A grammar that equates them is seriously faulty, but who will write us the grammar we need? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my examples of "of John" above. IacobusAmor 12:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

only to fuel the debate, other examples that i found: "prope in custodiam habitus" (Livy), "aliquem in potestatem habere"(Sallust),"adesse in senatum" (Cicero),also with others verbs besides esse habere adesse,"in carcerem asservari"(Livy),"velut in anciem stare"(Livy),my dictionary only cites the author.--LupusInFabula 12:56, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is none of the examples you are citing use "in" in the sense of english "in", but rather the sense of english "to" "into" or "as".-- 13:04, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood where there is the problem.On my mother tongue ,the english "in" corresponds to english "in ,to".--LupusInFabula 13:40, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lupus noster is on the right track. There is a construction type in aliquam rem esse which indicates that something has reached a certain state. Consider the contrast between, say,

  • quid tibi in mente est? 'what's in your mind?'


  • quid tibi in mentem est? (= quid tibi in mentem vènit[perfect] ?) 'what has come to your mind' or 'what has occurred to you?' (or something, I'm not sure how to say it in English in a natural way; in Swedish, I'd say simply 'vad har du fått för dig?' ) [cf. Plaut. Bacch. 1.2.53]
The most frequently heard English idiom related to this idea is probably 'what's on your mind?' (not 'what's in your mind?'). Again, not readily hospitable to Latin in + acc. IacobusAmor 19:21, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • mihi in conspectu est lupus 'there's a wolf before my eyes'


  • mihi in conspectum est lupus (= mihi in conspectum vènit lupus) 'a wolf has appeared to my eyes' [cf. Suet. Aug. 16]

Also Cicero uses this kind of construction every now and then. Those who know Greek will remember that the perfect tense of verbs of motion is stative in character. I'd compare "esse in aliquam rem with the Greek ἥκω εἰς construction, in which ἥκω means both 'I have arrived' and 'I am (present)'. The answer to Lupus's "technical" question appears to be: yes. But perhaps the construction is too idiomatic for everyday use in our Vicipaedia. Neander 13:53, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the excellent & instructive examples. Bear in mind, however, that we weren't asked about the pattern of 'a wolf has appeared to my eyes': we were asked about the pattern of 'there's a wolf before my eyes'—and traveling from the English, you can't ordinarily get to the former from the latter. As three native speakers of English have said or implied above, you'd need more context to send you in that direction. IacobusAmor 14:12, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been an absolutely fascinating discussion! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 19:07, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IEEE - Notable Committees and their formats[fontem recensere]

Dear Friends I would you translate this sentence Notable Committees and their formats in the page IEEE--Helveticus montanus 09:13, 9 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All your help is appreciated. In the meantime, let me change commissiones to consilia (sub committees), and conditum to condita to agree in gender with "organizatio"societas" .formula" seems to be a good translation for format. Gratias.--Jondel 23:36, 9 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collegium[fontem recensere]

In line with the IEEE article, please examine the prevailing use of "college" in English, which seems to retain the original meaning:'self-governing association of scholars ', 'an organized association of persons having certain powers and rights, and performing certain duties or engaged in a particular pursuit: ', 'a body of clergy living together on a foundation for religious service or similar activity. '. I would'nt be surprised if similar meanings are found in the cognates of Romance and other languges. What I'm saying is, can we use COLLEGIVM to mean a non-profit organization of scholars or priests or senior professionals to establish standards or to advance a purpose or studies. Gratias ago --Jondel 02:10, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we can narrow down differences between Collegium/"college" and organizatio/"organization", "colleges" have the common element of membership being learned or experienced. Organizations don't necessarily have a common element of all members being learned or experienced. collegium /Colleges focus on advancement or development. Organizations don't necessarily focus on advancement or development. Collegium /Colleges don't really focus on profit(Except for Guilds). Organizations tend to focus on profit by default.--Jondel 09:17, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index siglarum ordinum ecclesiae catholicae[fontem recensere]

Petitio a magistratibus: Falso "Index siglorum ..." ad Index siglarum ordinum ecclesiae catholicae movi. Aliquis paginam removeat quaeso!--Utilo 10:40, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro tempore non removi quia paginae aliquae ibi adnectantur -- vide indicem. Oportet eas paginas antea emendare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non intellego, quid sit faciendum: Oportetne nexus ad indicem siglorum (...) delere, antequam index siglarum (...) denuo ad indicem siglorum (...) removeri potest?--Utilo 17:45, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nunc removi. --Alex1011 17:56, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Date veniam -- male intellexi. Gratias ago, Alex. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:27, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratio ago et ego!--Utilo 20:32, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Latinitate classica, verbum siglorum non est falsum. Secundum Cassell's, 'mark of abbreviation' = "sigla (-orum, plur.: legal t. t.)" (hoc est terminus technicus legitimus). IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regressus sum![fontem recensere]

Me paenitet, quia e vicipaedia nostra aberat in tempore aestivale. Nunc in Oxonia, me conlationes iterum continenter agere possum. --Xaverius 11:47, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay! Et nobis psalles quoque? :) IacobusAmor 12:16, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita vero, vobis psallam si vobis placet! --Xaverius 15:08, 13 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yay! IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Antiquitate Posteriore[fontem recensere]

Fortasse conor paginam perambiciosam scribere de Antiquitate Posteriore. Quid vos putatis? Fortasse pagina brevior optima esse.--Xaverius 10:45, 16 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

circuli aut comitatus Romaniae[fontem recensere]

Helveticus Montanus has just done a lot of work in establishing all the Romanian "județe" (Formula:Circuli Romaniae. He calls them "circuli" (which, of course, is a possible way to translate județ). When scrutinizing Latin sources, you'll find, that provinces in Transsylvania and Banat traditionally were called "comitatus", smaller entities "districtus". I put a list of all Transsilvanian "comitatus" on the page Transsilvania some months ago. For all of these provinces there are Latin attestions, so, at first sight, I would prefer to use them instead of the modern (Romanian) name. I've found no Latin appellations for provinces outside the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. If the northern and western provinces are called "comitatus", of course all the others should be called so, too. On the other hand, it might be adequate to the changed political order (and changed boundaries of the provinces) to call provinces in Transsilvania "comitatus" till 1918, provinces in Romania afte 1918 "circuli". What do you think about it?--Utilo 09:02, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and the word "județ" is often translated "county" in English, which is the exact equivalent of "comitatus". But the point about the big change in 1918 is interesting. Romanian was not a fully official language in older Transilvania, and I don't know whether this word "județ" was used by Romanian speakers in Transilvania before 1918! Do you know?
Also it would be good to know (I don't know) how big are the differences between the pre-1918 provinces and the modern județe in that region. If they are largely the same, we would probably have one article for each and we should prefer the attested Latin name. But if they are largely different, we would have separate articles for the pre-1918 provinces, and it might then be best, as you suggest, to use a different word for the later județe, as Helveticus has done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, how Romanians called their provinces in the south and east (in pre-WWI-Romania), in Transsylvania they were called comitatul, for example Comitatul Alba de Jos (in Latin: Comitatus Albensis, Albensis inferior, Albensis Transylvanensis); after WWI they changed the name (județ). Hungarians called provinces "vármegye", now "megye" (omitting vár, which is castle). The area of some provinces did not change so much, that of others considerably, some provinces were suppressed, others newly created.--Utilo 16:10, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omnibus rite perpensis indicem comitatuum Regni Hungariae (non statim, mox tamen) afferam, qui multis modis sive cum comitatibus Hungariae hodiernae sive cum circulis Romaniae (necnon Croatiae etc.) necti potest.--Utilo 16:08, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quod modo efficere coepi (vide Index comitatuum Regni Hungariae)--Utilo 21:26, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nomina nobilium[fontem recensere]

Is there any rule how to deal with titles of nobility? If you look, for example, at Formula:Archiepiscopi Salisburgenses, sometimes titles are attached to the name (Paris comes de Lodron), sometimes omitted (Hieronymus de Colloredo). The German Wikipedia omitts them, not so the English one (cf. Hieronymus de Colloredo!--Utilo 09:18, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammatically, titles function as appositives. In formal style, they follow the personal name; hence "Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen" (in Latin, Elizabeth Dei Gratia Anglicae Franciae et Hiberniae Regina) and "John Doe, Knight" (in the standard Latin pattern, Ioannes Doe, Eques, with or without the comma) and "Barack Obama, President of the United States of America." In less formal style, they precede, usually with a great deal of shortening; hence "Queen Elizabeth" and "Sir John Doe" and "President Obama." Both the cited wikis may be erring here: perhaps the English one shouldn't use nonformal style, and the German one shouldn't omit definitive social information. Some of these points of style may be set, not just by custom, but by law, and they may change over the course of a life. Consider Arthur Wesley, whom almost everybody after 1815 has known only as "the (first) Duke of Wellington," or just plain "Wellington." But see how his name & title changed during his life:
The Honourable Arthur Wesley (birth–7 March 1787)
Ensign The Hon. Arthur Wesley (7 March 1787–25 December 1787)
Lieutenant The Hon. Arthur Wesley (25 December 1787–30 June 1791)
Captain The Hon. Arthur Wesley (30 June 1791–30 April 1793)
Major The Hon. Arthur Wesley (30 April 1793–30 September 1793)
Lieutenant-Colonel The Hon. Arthur Wesley (30 September 1793–3 May 1796)
Colonel The Hon. Arthur Wesley (3 May 1796–19 May 1798)
Colonel The Hon. Arthur Wellesley (19 May 1798–29 April 1802)
Major-General The Hon. Arthur Wellesley (29 April 1802–1 September 1804)
Major-General The Hon. Sir Arthur Wellesley, KB (1 September 1804–8 April 1807)
Major-General The Right Honourable Sir Arthur Wellesley, KB (8 April 1807–25 April 1808)
Lieutenant-General The Rt Hon. Sir Arthur Wellesley, KB (25 April 1808–4 September 1809)
Lieutenant-General The Rt Hon. The Viscount Wellington, KB, PC (4 September 1809–May 1811)
General The Rt Hon. The Viscount Wellington, KB, PC (May 1811–28 February 1812)
General The Rt Hon. The Earl of Wellington, KB, PC (28 February 1812–3 October 1812)
General The Most Honourable The Marquess of Wellington, KB, PC (3 October 1812–4 March 1813)
General The Most Hon. The Marquess of Wellington, KG, KB, PC (4 March 1813–21 June 1813)
Field Marshal The Most Hon. The Marquess of Wellington, KG, KB, PC (21 June 1813–11 May 1814)
Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington, KG, KB, PC (11 May 1814–2 January 1815)
Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, PC (2 January 1815–14 September 1852)
Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC (1816–14 September 1852)
Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (1847–14 September 1852)
An encyclopedia will ordinarily adopt the highest rank or the final style, and the English wiki does just that, giving him the lemma "Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, KP, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS" and in the personal box, "Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington KG KP GCB GCH PC FRS." However, titles can change, by law, even after death: George Washington, who served during the Revolution as "General and Commander in Chief," lived in retirement as a lieutenant general, and died in 1799, was promoted to the rank of "General of the Armies of the United States" on 4 July 1976. The English wiki puts none of that in the lemma. Inconsistency abounds! IacobusAmor 11:10, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor does any of the other wikis! (by the way, thank you for your awe-inspiring broad answer!)--Utilo 11:24, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting discussion. Some people on the English wiki are obsessed by titles and forms of address: other wikis (and other encyclopedias) generally omit most of this stuff. I think we should omit most of it too. The really important rule is to give the name by which people were or are best known.
As to being given a long-posthumous promotion, this is part of someone's fame or "fortuna", like being made a saint. I would say it usually belongs at the end of the article, and not usually in the lemma. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh-oh. By the same logic (the criterion of contemporary relations [the world of the living person], rather than latter-day ones [the reception in later times]), you might want to uphold the idea (discussed elsewhere) that Copernicus's writings occurred in Borussia, not Polonia! IacobusAmor 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the parallel ... but, anyway, I had already commented at Disputatio:De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:57, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2010 Fundraising Is Almost Here[fontem recensere]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

Hello Wikipedians, I am Kelly and I am working for the Wikimedia Foundation during the 2010 Fundraiser. My job is to be the liaison between your community and the Foundation. This year's fundraiser is intended to be a collaborative and global effort; we recognize that banner messages which may perform well in the United States don't necessarily translate well, or appeal to international audiences.

I'm contacting you as I am currently looking for translators who are willing to contribute to this project by helping translate and localize messages into different languages and suggesting messages that would appeal to your readers on the Fundraising Meta Page. We've started the setup on meta for both banner submission, statistical analysis, and grouping volunteers together.
Use the talk pages on meta, talk to your local communities, talk to others, talk to us, and add your feedback to the proposed messages as well! I look forward to working with you during this year's fundraiser. If someone could translate this message I would really appreciate it so that everyone is able to understand our goals and contribute to this year's campaign.
Klyman 18:52, 21 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forcellini[fontem recensere]

See Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 4#Forcellini. I have just found out via this Latin blog that Forcellini's Lexicon Totius Latinitatis (big dictionary of Latin of all periods) is available for download free at "Documenta Catholica Omnia". You seem to have to go to this page and click on each of the volumes in turn. Then, on the html pages that you reach, you can right-click on the pdf link and "save as ..." to get the pdf files. They take a long time to download -- these were huge volumes -- but at least the pdf of the Preface (139 pages) opens correctly when downloaded. I'll try the first full volume now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, when I download vol. 1, pages 1-747 appear to be OK, but pages 748-932 are unreadable. It would be interesting to know if others get the same result. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot say unreadable, but indeed difficult to read, many letters are not very clearly visible. It needs some guesswork. --Alex1011 20:04, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for that response, Alex. When I tried, those pages were completely blank. So I will now try again :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Hate group"[fontem recensere]

Something along the lines of grex odibilis / grex exosus / grex odiens? Mattie 22:44, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I had to choose among those alternatives perhaps grex exosus would be the one.-- 22:57, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)