Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 16

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

LATINITAS[fontem recensere]

Dear Friends, I hope that you can understand what is written in this article of La Repubblica. Vaticano, a qualcuno non piace il latino. I sum up: Vatican City: somebody does not like the Latin language. The foundation Latinitas has been downgraded. Because of the loss of autonomy and money the certamen Latinum has been deleted. This is very strage if you think that the present Pope, Benedict XVI, has always spoken and acted in favour of the Latin language, Do you believe we (as users of vicipaedia) could/should organize something (a letter, a collection of signature etc.)?--Helveticus montanus 21:10, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it does indeed seem strange. Could there be some issue of Vatican politics underlying the apparent contradiction? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:22, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not find there much beyond MMIX: Latinitas (periodicum) --Alex1011 22:37, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marinumbm operam meam simpliciter delevit[fontem recensere]

Salvete. Egomet intellexi, quare in re Iesu citatum textum meum Vulgatae delevisset, AT meum opus (sententia religionum diversarum) sine causa data delevit, necque possum eius mutationem abrogare. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 19:26, 2 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si abrogatio simplex impossibilis sit, possumus omnes textum perditum in versionibus "historicis" reperire et in versione currenti imponere. Id nunc feci, mi Martine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:08, 2 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago permaximas, care Andrea. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 14:07, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iesus – (Iesus) Christus[fontem recensere]

Forsitan melius esset (sicut vicipedia Anglica, Theodisca etc.) duas commentationes facere: Iesus (i.e. Iesus „historicus“) et Iesus Christus (i.e. Iesus tamquam figura fidei sive theologiae)? Nimirum magni laboris esset ...--Utilo 22:13, 2 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

paginae desideratae[fontem recensere]

As the special page Specialis:Paginae desideratae has not been refreshed for more than a year due to performance reasons, I have now created Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae to serve as a replacement. --UV 22:38, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bots[fontem recensere]

For the record: I have asked our Vicipaedia:Grapheocrates to grant the bot flag to Usor:Mjbmrbot and Usor:WikitanvirBot, as they appear to do good work and make a large number of edits. --UV 23:08, 4 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apples[fontem recensere]

Andreas: "I think this is a synonym for "Malus pumila". If I'm wrong, please just revert." ¶ Yes, they seem to be a mess, with articles on partially overlapping subjects. In the English wikipedia, the species-name "Malus domestica" redirects to "Apple," whose Vicipaedia version is Malum, but then Vicipaedia has the article Malus, referring to a genus, which doesn't recognize the species Malus domestica! The attempted distinction seems to be between the plant (Malus) and the fruit (Malum), but it's a tricky path to follow. :/ IacobusAmor 19:24, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's a cross-linguistic mess, as is evident from trying to follow inter-wiki links etc. My impression from sources that I think reliable (?) is that "Malus pumila" is now the preferred botanical name, not "Malus domestica". But these things change, and I could be out of date.
A while back I started Malus as the article about the botanical genus, and Malus pumila as the one about the botanical species (it could be moved to "Malus domestica" if that name is currently the botanical fashion). As you rightly say, Malum is about the fruit and I didn't touch it (so far as I remember). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:29, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources I cited on the Malus page (notably ITIS, which I find pretty reliable) do seem to confirm that "Malus pumila" (not "Malus domestica") is the preferred botanical name. Some other wikis agree too, the French and Spanish for example: it looks to me as though en:wiki may be out of step. But I'm no botanist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:46, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gradus (mensura)[fontem recensere]

In pagina Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae est Gradus (mensura) cum 3066 nexibus. Estne utilis talis pagina? Habemus paginam discretivam Gradus ... - Forsitan Gradus (mensura) voce Gradus anguli permutanda est?--Utilo 20:04, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ita, redirectio Gradus (mensura) > Gradus anguli creanda est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:09, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dictum factum.--Utilo 22:35, 6 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biologia-stipula[fontem recensere]

Huic stipulae sunt 1545 paginae. Quis creabit plures formulas, fortasse pro ordinibus plantarum? IacobusAmor 17:31, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask Usor:Robert.Baruch, perhaps? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of Bede[fontem recensere]

I'm working on the article on Bede in the en.wikipedia; current version is here. My Latin is very weak, and I have run into a source that quotes some Bede without translating; I wonder if anyone here would be willing to help? The Latin text is: "Quotidie namque et nova per reliquias eius aguntur, et vetera noviter ab his qui scire poterant indicantur. Ex quibus unum est quod in me ipso, sicut iam tibi dixi, per linguae curationem, dum miracula eius canerem, expertus sum." This appears in C.H. Whiting's "Life of Bede", in A.H. Thompson's Bede: His Life, Times and Writings. The text is apparently from Bede's preface to his own verse version of the life of St. Cuthbert; I haven't been able to locate a copy of an English translation. Any help would be much appreciated: I gather the text refers to the story of Bede being cured of a stutter by Cuthbert -- I'd like to include something about the story in the article but would like to understand the reference Whiting makes to this passage before I use it. Thanks -- Mike Christie 04:19, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's right, there seems to be no English translation of the Metrical Life. Oddly enough I have a text of the Prose Life on my desk right now, but there's no passage precisely corresponding to this. Bede might have mentioned this cure of his in the 'miracles' section of the Prose Life, but, unless I've missed it, he doesn't.
I understand the text as follows: "... because every day new [miracles] are being effected by his relics, and old ones are being newly reported by those who have been able to learn of them. Among these [miracles] there is one that I experienced in my own self, as I have already told you, through the cure of my tongue/speech while I was singing about his miracles."
If others think I've got something wrong here, they will certainly intervene! "Lingua", as you'll know, can mean "tongue" or "speech", and I hardly know which word to choose in this context. Readers of our Taberna will notice the use of per + acc. here -- something we've been discussing recently! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much! That's exactly what I needed -- I appreciate it. Mike Christie 00:25, 11 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De nomine urbis[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Ante omnia, mihi ignoscete propter latinitatem meam malam. Quaestionem habeo de urbis Medantae nomine. Haec urbs pluralia nomina latina habet nam haec nomina mediae aetatis latinitatis pertinent : Medanta, Medonta, Medunta. Verum nomen latinum "Meduanta" putatus est, vel "Meduantum", singularum ejus, sed nunquam scriptum est. Tunc quo nomine utamur oportet? Gratias ago. Medunta 20:00, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Habemus fontem verum mediaevalem pro "Medanta" (sed sine dubio alii fontes aliter scribunt); habemus fontem interretialem pro "Medunta" (sed an haec pagina fons fidelis sit, nescimus). Igitur, pro tempore, "Medanta" accipimus. Tu quid dicis, et qua ratione? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 10 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita loquor quia quidquid nomen medievalum cum cautione inspiciandum est, ut certe jam novis, et cum pluralia nomina urbi sint, quamquam "medunta" frequentior sit (fontes quos citas jam novi), ratio invenienda est. Haec nomina ab "meduantum" orta esse videntur, quod hanc vocalum variationem explicare potest, ut monstratur in fonte paginae francogallicae fr:Mantes-la-Jolie#Héraldique, étymologie et toponymie. "Mantes-la-Jolie" non sola urbs hujus nominis est, nam nomen "Mande-Saint-Étienne" a "Meduanta/um" quoque ortum esse videtur. Haec scripta sunt in libro "Les noms gaulois chez César et Hirtius De bello gallico" quem in interretiale invenire poteris. Tunc quod nomen eligere? Nomen medievalum (verum sed non unitum) aut (quod puto) classicum (unitum sed non historicum quamquam etymologicum)? Anglice vel francogallice explicare possum si quod dici barbarum videtur. Medunta 08:44, 11 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etiam nomen fluminis "Mayenne" e "Meduana" ortum est, cuius "u" ablati esse potest. Ita bis habemus "Meduan-" => "Medan-". Puto hoc esse relationem phoneticam. Cum Meduana nomen fluvii sit, a Romanis scriptum est, item nomen oppidi "Mande-Saint-Étienne" fuit "Meduantum" (habemus fontem verum) tempore Iulii Caesaris. Illo tempore oppidum "Mantes" nondum exstabat, sed idem nomen quam "Mande-Saint-Étienne" esse arbitror. Medunta 13:33, 12 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobis necesse est fontes de nomine huius urbis citare (reconstructiones etymologicae pro nominibus paginarum Vicipaedianarum non suadent). Fonte "fideli" orthographiae Medunta pro hac urbe citato, libenter potes paginam movere. (Ut videbis, licet novis editoribus post quattuor dies paginas movere.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 12 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explicationes tuae mihi sufficiunt : Servamus nomen "Medanta". Me cogito autem in pagina additurum nominis explicationem esse (cum fonte). Gratias tibi, vale! Medunta 20:23, 12 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dog Latin?[fontem recensere]

Celebrantes sumus anniversario decimo Vicipaedia. Vis accedam? Qua lingua scriptum est? Nonne melius: Celebramus anniversarium decimum Vicipaediae. Accedere visne? Gabriel Svoboda 13:25, 13 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recte monebas, amice, quod grammatica est falsa. Fortasse melius "Decimum festum diem anniversarium celebramus"? IacobusAmor 14:32, 13 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somerset[fontem recensere]

Oppidane nobis movenda sunt si nomen Latinum attestatum habent? --Alex1011 21:20, 13 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro certo (si in fontibus publicatis aut "fidelibus" reperimus). Gratias ago ob nomen Dunestorum castri repertum, et iam movi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 13 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translatio hebdomadis: License compatibility[fontem recensere]

I put there "concordabilitas licentiarum" (concordabilitas, cf. Raimundus Lullus: Liber de novis fallaciis). Now I've found some "rather old" attestations for "compatibilitas". Kompatibilitaet: [1], Leibniz: [2], Online Latin-Hungarian Dictionary: [3], Compatibilitas fidei: [4], incompatibilitas: [5]. Which do you think is the better word to be used? Or should the term be translated in a different way?--Utilo 16:06, 14 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

incertitudini linguae britannicae evitando venia vel comprobatio licentiarum propono
an "congruentia licentiarum"?--Utilo 21:56, 15 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classically, compatibilitas seems not to be a word, and licentia = 'freedom, leave, liberty', but often 'licentiousness'. Secundum Ainsworth's, 'a license' (= 'a permit') est privilegium, et 'compatibility' est habilis rerum inter se conciliatio. 'Incompatibility' = repugnantia. IacobusAmor 22:30, 15 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, neither concordabilitas nor compatibilitas are ancient words (let alone classic!). I would like to avoid them if possible. But we have to express the modern concept of "License compatibility" in Latin. Habilis rerum inter se conciliatio might be quite a precise paraphrase, but it is sooooo long! I am not certain, wether "licentia" is an adequate translation; on the other hand, license (< licentia) in all languages I know is used to express the given idea. By the way, also in English (or Italian ...) license (licenza) has many meanings, among others "licentiousness". "Privilegium" traditionally is something granted to single persons in contrast to others; in my eyes "license" rather is a permission or even more a contract between the copyright-holder and the user.--Utilo 23:11, 15 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have numerous attestations in books & prints published cum privilegio regis 'by the king's license', and cum privilegio regiae maiestatis 'by license of his royal majesty', and merely cum privilegio 'by license'. IacobusAmor 13:05, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that we should put classicality above practicality when classicality is not necessary.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 03:37, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we customarily go for classical Latin when possible; but it may not be possible. Anyway, for concept A I like Utilo's briefer suggestion, "congruentia" ("concordia" could be an alternative, but "congruentia" is probably better). For concept B, I could live with "licentiarum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just seen IacobusAmor's attestations: What about "congruentia privilegiorum" ?--Utilo 13:43, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, makes me happy. Iacobus is quite right: "privilegium" was used historically in this subject area. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve done some more reading about privilegium and licentia and I am no longer happy about congruentia privilegiorum. In the article Ius privilegium ist defined "lex specialis pro homine quodam vel contra eum" (taken from Roman law). In medieval times privilegium is strongly attached to feudalism, afterwards privilegium is something "gratis datum" sive "gratia datum" by a sovereign or a state. In books "cum privilegio regis" and "cum privilegio regiae maiestatis" seems to mean rather monopoly than licence (in modern sense): The sovereign protects one printer against all the others threatening them to be punished if publishing unauthorized editions. In modern context privilegium is clearly an out-dated term – even the CIC from 1983 pushed it back, though Roman Catholic Church still is a kind of monarchy. - So I would like to move congruentia privilegiorum to congruentia licentiarum. (By the way: Also "licentia" has been a legal term in Canonical Law for centuries!). - I think we also should write or amend articles on: privilegium, licentia, litterae patentes, concessio, ius auctoris, proprietas intellectualis and monopolium. If no one else in this forum is keen to to that I'll try to do it (within some weeks)--Utilo 16:47, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maassluisia[fontem recensere]

Pagina creavit heri, Maassluisia, nondum stipula est. Paginam melior facere, volo addere nexūs externos, sed pagina Maassluisiae Anglicae non multos nexūs habet. Fortasse non multi nexūs pagina Latina Maassluisia habebit, aut res Maassluisiae petere mihi debet? Gratias vobis ago

Yesterday, I created the article Latin article Maassluis, which is not yeat a stub. To make the page better, I want to add external links and sources, but the English article for Maassluis does not have many external links. Perhaps the Latin article for Maassluis will not have many external links, or should I, myself, search for things about Maassluis? Thank you all --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 03:32, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I suggest you look for external links. They can be in any relevant language.
The other missing essential is that the name "Maassluisia" has to be justified with a citation. We don't invent place-names. So, if you find no citation for Maassluisia as a Latin name, the page will get moved to Maassluis. (That name would need no citation because the interwiki links show that it is correct.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:30, 16 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discus Rarus[fontem recensere]

Quis scit, quid sit "Discus Rarus" (cf. Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae, Nr. 12) ubique in Vicipedia inveniatur?--Utilo 16:57, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Discus_Rarus --Alex1011 22:57, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inveniri potest hac in formula: Formula:Systema solare nostrum --Alex1011 23:05, 18 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
en:scattered disk --Alex1011 09:01, 19 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago. - Non est verbum Latinum attestatum, ut suspicor, pro "scattered disk (disc)". Quid de "Corpora (sive: res??) Ultraneptuniana dispersa"? Cf. Categoriam eiusdem nominis. - Etiam verbum "obiectum" pro "re" sive "corpore" - ut in OZK (Obiecta zonae Kuiperi) - minus apte adhibitum esse videtur. Nonne melius de rebus sive corporibus zonae Kuiperi scribamus?--Utilo 17:51, 19 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nexus "Corpora transneptuniana" (et etiam interwiki huius nominis) ad OZK ducit: OZK autem sunt tantum pars Corporum transneptunianorum (sive ultraneptunianorum) sicut et Corpora Ultraneptuniana dispersa et Nubis Oortensis. - Quid melius esse videtur, ultraneptunianus an transneptunianus?--Utilo 17:58, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modo vidi: Est etiam pagina desiderata "Corpora Ultraneptuniana" (cf. 90377 Sedna--Utilo 18:07, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin Pop[fontem recensere]

Oh, gosh, I don't know Latin as well as I should, and it's at night, and I really can't give the effort to write in Latin. Really sorry. My page, Musica popularis Latina, is really bad. It has no internal or external links, it has no descriptiveness, and it is just too overwhelming for me to do on my own. The page needs help! NB: This page is the Latin version of: Latin Pop. Also, I think it was suggested to me that my grammar on that was bad, and that's one of the reasons I didn't bother to write this in Latin. But I have a change of heart. I'll try my hardest!

O, non cogitare Latine bene ut debitus est mihi, et nocte est, et valde non iam possum laborem dare Latine scribere. (Non necesse erat mihi scribere, sed volo reddere Latine). Pagina meus,Musica popularis Latina, valde malus est. Non nexūs externi aut interni habet, verbae non cum arte scribebantur ab mē. Mē opprimebit si paginam aedificere solus. Auxilium pagina necesse est habere! NB: Haec pagina est illa pagina Latine: Latin Pop. Plus, me dictus est Latina meus malus est. Quam ob causa non Latina prius constitui. non scribere.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 03:01, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

49 000[fontem recensere]

Si recte numeravi, pagina no. 49,000 est Heliotropium a Iacobo nuper incepta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woohoo! Flores gaudent! IacobusAmor 13:29, 2 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accentus vocis "favoritus" ubi est?[fontem recensere]

Salve! Potestis mihi dicere accentus verbis "favoritus, -a, -um" ubi est? Gratias vobis ago. --El Mexicano 09:29, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Favoritus non est verbum Latinum classicum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, then how do you say favo(u)rite in Latin? --El Mexicano 11:36, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll depend on the context, but "carissimus" and "gratissimus" are useful words to try. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maximas gratias. --El Mexicano 13:24, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum Cassell's: carus, gratiosus, gratus, acceptus. IacobusAmor 15:14, 22 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hispania Romana[fontem recensere]

Hispania Romana deleta esse videtur, sed varie nexus ad hanc paginam inveniuntur (Hispania, Historia Hispanica). Quid faciendum est?--Utilo 14:04, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nunquam exstitit, praeter unum verbum "vandalicum", et ob hanc rationem deletum. Si vis, potes paginam incipere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De voce "locutores" linguarum in articulis Vicipaedianis[fontem recensere]

Nonne melius et Latinius esset scribere "loquentes" pro "locutores," quae vox aut postclassica est aut aliud refert. Hoc mutare conatus sum in articulo de nescio qua lingua Finnica sed methodum qua perhibeatur non inveni. Ut apparet, est signum "fabulantes" quod ope viciprogrammatis expanditur in vocabulum "locutores." Si magistratus mihi assentiuntur de hac re, necesse erit valorem illius "fabulantes" immutare.

Praemium Utiloni daturum[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes. Videte amici Propositionem praemii Utiloni nostro, et suffragate!--Xaverius 19:55, 26 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certamen mundanum Manufoll-?[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes. Vobis quaero, quod nomen optimum Latinum esse pro de:Handball-Weltmeisterschaft. Certamen mundanum manufollicum, Certamen mundanum manufolliense, Certamen mundanum mascullinum manufollii aut versio alia? Gratias ago permultas!--Xaverius 22:46, 28 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Equidem dixerim aut Certamen de principatu mundano manufollii (masculini, feminini) aut Certamen pro principatu mundano manufollii (masculini, feminini) aut – quamquam genetivum genetivo addere taedet – Certamen mundani principatús manufollii (masculini, feminini). Pro principatu etiam primatu uti possimus. Utique non egemus adiectivo "manufollico, manufolliensi" vel sim. Neander 23:28, 28 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias, Neander. --Xaverius 13:22, 29 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albertus VI / Albertus VI (archidux Austriae)[fontem recensere]

I've just made a mistake: I started the page Albertus VI (archidux Austriae) without realising, that there is already Albertus VI. Please, could somebody clean up! Thank you.--Utilo 22:31, 30 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put a redirect. --Alex1011 23:24, 30 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apostrophes[fontem recensere]

If anyone wants to comment about what kind of apostrophes should be used in headings (e.g. the simple apostrophe in J'accuse versus the curved apostrophe J’accuse) please add a comment at Disputatio Usoris:Mattie. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:49, 2 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nary a clue about grammar[fontem recensere]

What's to be done about the anonymous person whose every new page lowers the quality of Vicipaedia? Since his/her IP changes continually, he/she presumably isn't blockable. Will the magistrates look into this? IacobusAmor 18:49, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've notcied this, but I have no clue about what to do. He is a person from Mexico, and I do not think we can block all the IP's from a single city. Unless we write him an email, I do not know what to do... but can we write emails to unidentified IPs?--Xaverius 19:45, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's anything we can do unless
  1. We mark such additions as "Latinitas -6" or "non stipula" -- in which case they will be deleted, by regular process, unless someone improves them; or
  2. We take the drastic step of not allowing unregistered users to create new articles. This is possible (en:wiki does it) but personally I think it would be very unwise: we get many useful articles from IPs.
Option 1 is perfectly simple, and I recommend it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a steward or programmer can block a range of IP addresses, eg. everyone from guadalajara, from editing unless they create an account. I think some of the wikis including en do it to stop ip abuse, it is not all ip users that are blocked at en.-- 04:36, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are replying to my point, you misunderstand it. It is a fact (unless something has changed recently) that IP users cannot create articles at en:wiki. They can edit but they can't create. They introduced this rule after the Seigenthaler controversy.
As to blocking users from a certain city, that was discussed at length at en:wiki, a while ago, as a way of stopping a certain pestilential vandal from somewhere in the southern US states. It wasn't done at that stage, but I think it was done briefly to stymie someone that the wiki cabal (which doesn't exist) disliked. I have more details somewhere but they are very boring. So, yes, I guess it could be done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least until we find a way to contact this person!--Xaverius 10:15, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say it could be done, but, for the record, I don't think it should be done. Nor do I think we should remove the right of IPs to create articles, although that could be done as well. In my view, we have a solution. We delete pages that are marked as being of unacceptable Latinity or below stub quality. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With that solution, the anonymous person is veritably forcing people who care about Vicipaedia's quality to spend time that they'd more happily be spending otherwise. IacobusAmor 14:54, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there is no guarantee that the IP will notice that his pages are being flagged and deleted. He does not notice the changes in the pages he creates, it seems.--Xaverius 19:12, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, he might have noticed a change or two and improved as a result, but what baffles the most is the combination of (1) nearly complete ignorance of grammar and (2) persistence in adding one-sentence (if you can call them sentences) articles! IacobusAmor
I offer no guarantees. Try it and see?
Anyway, is Convolvulaceae one of these? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps; id scripsit. Hodie, nobis dat: "Magnoliaceae est [!] familia plantarun [!] florentium Magnolialium ordinis qui [!] specierum [!] Magnolia [!] pertinet." IacobusAmor 18:17, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et nunc, nobis offert: "Magnoliales est [sic] ordo plantarun [sic] florentium"—seemingly falling into Helveticus's error (see comitatus above) of adopting & reduplicating a faulty template (plantarun). Maybe it's time to block the whole city for a while and see what happens. IacobusAmor 18:22, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hodie, noster amicus est, et sua sententia est "Plantago est genus species plantarum florentium Plantaginacearum familiae." Genus est species! IacobusAmor 18:29, 7 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mulieres[fontem recensere]

My anthropology professor just shared this article, which you might find interesting: Where are the Women in Wikipedia (Anglice). Quot mulieres sunt in Vicipaedia? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 19:02, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, that was curious... although of course, apart from Amphitrite, we do not seem to have that many other regular women contributors...--Xaverius 19:52, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting, and I think in broad terms it's true; although (as is said in that debate) we don't always know. I feel there's truth in the observation that many people, and in particular many women, find the tone of Wiki talk page debate combative and threatening. Well, we have good contributors who stay anonymous, and good contributors who never comment on talk pages, and both of those things are fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Combative and threatening"? Hardly, by the standards of most of the web! I'm female, minimally active I guess, but also aggressively recommending (even assigning) Vicipaedia to my students -- it's never occurred to me that this was a "boys' club"! --A. Mahoney 19:52, 16 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina non est situs[fontem recensere]

Would people try to remember that a page is not a site? IacobusAmor 14:22, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What stirred this thought? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People often call a situs a pagina, but a page is a subset of a site: a site may have many pages. To give a link to a site and call it a page is problematic, except when the site consists of only one page. IacobusAmor 14:48, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auxilium peto[fontem recensere]

Ooopss in 435 paginis scripsi in hoc comitatus et non in hoc comitatu et De hac comitato et non De hoc comitatu. Est bot quod errores meos corrigere potest?Helveticus montanus 19:02, 4 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UVbot has now corrected 402 pages. In a few days, after the next update of the search index, we can use Specialis:Search/comitato to find remaining pages that need to be corrected. --UV 01:13, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Domu?[fontem recensere]

Helvetice, cur domu (casu ablativo) scribebas, contra domi (casu locativo)? IacobusAmor 11:52, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinata[fontem recensere]

Is it useful to include the coordinates template regularly on our pages about places? I think it probably is. It links to the wikimedia toolserver utility "GeoHack", which offers lots of links to maps and geographical information from many sources. If others agree that this is useful, there are two supplementary questions.

  1. Where on the page to put this information? It can simply be included among external links -- as it is on four Vicipaedia pages on which it currently appears: see e.g. Westport (Wiltonia) which I prepared earlier. Or it can be put at the extreme top right of the page, as is done on en:wiki: see e.g. en:Westport, Wiltshire which I also created earlier. Which is preferable?
  2. If we agree it's desirable, can the coord template be placed on our existing geographical pages by a bot? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:27, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think coordinates would make a useful addition to our pages. Coordinates are the kind of basic information you expect an encyclopaedia to have, you know? As for the placement, I think it should be as accessible as possible, so I'm voting for the top-right corner. I mean, if you were to go on Wikipedia looking only for coordinates, you wouldn't want to scroll to the external links every time. And it'd be better if people actually knew we had them in the first place, which they probably wouldn't if the coordinates were 'hidden' among the external links. (Perhaps I'm biased, though, as I rarely ever look through the links...) — Mattie 17:56, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Mattie. IacobusAmor 17:44, 8 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to both. That's fine by me. I have asked UV for comments too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course coordinates would provide useful information, so in principle I would welcome the addition of coordinates to our articles.
Some thoughts on this:
  • We might try to settle beforehand on a standard way of which wikitext/template(s) we would like to use to add coordinates to articles (we currently have not only {{Coord}} but also {{Coor dm}} and {{Coor dms}}, which is currently used on more than 1200 pages; furthermore there is de:Template:Coordinate which claims to be better than en:Template:Coord) and we should settle on where and how the coordinates should appear in the page (there is not just the possibility of adding a link to "geohack" but we might as well include OpenStreetMap maps in our pages, see de:Hilfe:OpenStreetMap/en). I personally never cared much about coordinates so I have no particular views on what should be our preferred solution.
  • The subject of an article is rarely confined to a point in the mathematical sense. Cities have a certain geographical extent, and even buildings and monuments cover a certain area. The en:University of Duisburg-Essen has no statutory seat (!) and spreads over the cities of Thuiscoburgum and Assindia (I wonder where the coordinates in the English article on the university actually point to). Surely other wikipedias have already worked out solutions to these problems. Where should the coordinates in the article on res publica Africa Australis point to – Praetoria, the seat of executive power, Bloemfontein, the seat of judiciary power, Civitas Capitis, the seat of legislative power, or the en:centroid of the country's shape (which might be difficult to calculate, and it might actually lie in a different country!)?
  • Yes, in principle a bot could be programmed that adds coordinate information from other wikipedias. However, I/UVbot cannot, and a bot would not be able to check the accuracy of the coordinate information it adds to our pages.
Greetings, --UV 21:16, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Food for thought as usual. I hadn't noticed that a coordinate template was included in those big city infoboxes -- I thought I was talking about 4 pages with existing coordinate templates, not 1200! And, no, I don't know what is done on other wikis to fix coordinates for large areas and scattered entities: I had better try to find out, I think ... Thanks, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mezzosoprano - Medius supranus?[fontem recensere]

Estne vox Latina pro "mezzo soprano"?--Utilo 23:37, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortasse! IacobusAmor 17:44, 8 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De nominibus hominibus[fontem recensere]

Salve, amici! Cur in Vicipaedia nomina hominum traducuntur? Verbi gratia, "Barack Obama" est "Barack Obama" in lingua Hispanica, sed quoque in Anglica, Gallica et ceterae linguae. Autem in Vicipaedia Latina pagina appellatur "Baracus Obama". Etiam in Iosephus Ludovicus Rodriguez Zapatero, Georgius Bush aut Gordonus Brown. Ego scio quem nomen hominum declinandos in lingua Latina, sed num gravior quam respicere verum nominum personae est? Furti 18:47, 6 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amice Furti, bene iam dixisti: in lingua Latina nomina declinari oportet, quia lingua Latina casus habet, et per casus multa facit quae aliae linguae (ut Italiana, Anglica, Francogallica) per praepositiones faciunt. Nisi Latine declinaremus, quomodo ad exemplum diceremus George Bush's son? Num dicere possumus "George Bush filius" (ubi 'George' ipse filius esse videtur), vel "Filius de George Bush"? Quamquam, amice, nomina non Latina declinare non est tantum usus noster hodiernus: René Descartes iam suo tempore appellabatur "Cartesius" (-i, m.), et in tumulo philosophi Blasii Pascalis (mortuus anno 1662), legere possumus "Nobilissimi Scutarii Blasii Pascalis Tumulus".--Poecus 19:30, 6 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Compositores theatri lyrici[fontem recensere]

The general, catch-all term should probably be Compositores operarum. "Lyric theater" refers to a subset of operas, not to all of them: many who composed operas didn't compose lyric theater pieces. Most of the composers with which the category of lyric-theater composers has been populated probably don't belong there. For details on the genres of opera, see Index generum operarum, in progressu. Is theatrum lyricum a calque from the French? See en:Theatre lyrique. IacobusAmor 17:44, 8 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Opera is currently a mess of operas sensu proprio on the one hand and of artistic works in general on the other hand. How should we best distinguish these two concepts? --UV 22:47, 8 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gather that Iacobus prefers to use the term "opera" for what is called opera in English (and some other languages): if so -- and I agree it's a good and useful term -- then it's necessary to move most of the current contents of "Categoria:Opera" (which was up to now a supercategory for works of human skill and art, plural of "Opus") and choose a different term. What term would that be? One could say "Opera ingenii humani" or one could look for a different word entirely. I would support any such move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gadgets[fontem recensere]

Pardon my English, but the gadgets in the preferences seem to have stopped working - in case it matters, I use the replace-U-with-V, replace-J-with-I and smallcaps. Kennercat 01:19, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Kennercat, please try again, gadgets currently work for me.
The upgrade of the MediaWiki software from version 1.16wmf4 to version 1.17wmf1 (see Specialis:Version and en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-07/Technology report#MediaWiki 1.17 deployment imminent) was scheduled to take place yesterday but was postponed due to problems. When this upgrade takes place, it might break gadgets again – let's wait and see ;-( --UV 20:17, 9 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, seems to have been a problem on my end. I had to reinstall Firefox for unrelated reasons, and now they appear to work again. Kennercat 04:57, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, while I'm here, I should probably note that the ligaturas monstrare gadget, whenever I select it and save my preferences, deselects itself. Kennercat 05:05, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this was broken. It should now be fixed. Thanks for reporting this bug! --UV 23:09, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anglice "family tree"[fontem recensere]

Quid est vocabulum Latine? --Nathan M. Swan 02:49, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secundum Cassell's, stemma, -atis, n. (apud Senecam et Iuvenalem). IacobusAmor 03:54, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ac Morgan stirps, linea, index maiorum dat. — Mattie 03:57, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philologi de stemmate codicum loquuntur. Neander 06:36, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Lignum/Ligna[fontem recensere]

I've put Categoria:Lignum in a couple of articles, but I see that brother Andrew has created the category as Categoria:Ligna. Most of the other wikis, including the English, German, and Italian ones, use the singular. A disparity to be resolved! IacobusAmor 12:49, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Italian use the plural (combustibili), don't they? Plus, all the Iberian wikis (both romance and non-indoeuropean) also use the plural. [sorry, I was looking at "combustibles", not at "madera"]--Xaverius 13:49, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact es:wiki does use the plural, es:Categoría:Maderas. One of the few that does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And our rule is to use the plural where the plural makes sense (see VP:CAT#Quomodo categoriae excogitantur et nominantur). I don't see any problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that Categoria:Ligna is a subcategory of Categoria:Anatomia plantarum, whose articles are the singular nouns Rhizoma and Vacuolum. ¶ On a related point: I don't see how/why Categoria:Anatomia plantarum should be distinct from (the much more fully populated) Categoria:Morphologia plantarum, whose (nineteen) articles are all singular: Arbor, Arista, Caudex, Caulis, Cormus, Corymbus, Enatio, Ficus, Flos, Folium, Nux, Panicula, Pappus, Rhizoma, Sepalum, Staminodium, Stipula, Suffrutex, Tepalum. IacobusAmor 14:35, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This, then, seems to be a problem you have created today, by making Categoria:Ligna a subcategory of Categoria:Anatomia plantarum. By all means implement a solution! If as a result any existing category is emptied and needs to be deleted, that can be done.
... I'm still bemused, because surely it's normal on Vicipaedia for article titles to be singular (where the singular makes sense) and category names to be plural (where the plural makes sense). But, as I say, since you see the problem, do please implement the solution. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now, I won't pretend to be an expert on this, but does "Categoria:Ligna" actually make sense? It's a material, so I reckon it should be singular. Chairs aren't made of woods, for instance.
... of course you could say "this chair's made of a variety of woods." But I'd say "ligna" still seems awkward in the plural without context. — Mattie 03:53, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet according to Lewis & Short lignum -a in its first sense was "always plural" in classical texts. So to Latin speakers the plural must have made sense.
But I think the problem is slightly different: a difference between what I intended when I created the category ("species that provide wood/timber", a subcategory of "plantae utiles") and the way it is now interwikied and linked. So then there are two questions, both easy enough to solve:
  1. what is the best term for "wood" as an aspect of the anatomy or morphology of plants? maybe "Lignum", in which case, yes, yes, please create it;
  2. what is the best term for "species that provide wood/timber" as a subgroup of useful plants? Maybe not "Ligna", in which case, please suggest something better. I always go for pregnant brevity, but maybe in this case I went too far! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, plural? This is what I meant by "I'm no expert on this" :)
What about something along the lines of "species lignis (adhibitae)" or "species ligna ferentes"? Mattie 19:18, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since lignum (seemingly) is chiefly used in the plural, it almost seems to mean 'piece of wood', while materia may mean something more like 'wood (the substance)'. IacobusAmor 20:43, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think you're right. (Sorry I didn't recognise the problem at first: there certainly is one, I now agree.) But "materia" is a mere variant of "materies" and we are already using that word in a far more general sense (see Categoria:Materies). I am thinking that, for the sense I need, I can't do better than Mattie's suggestion, "Categoria:Species ligna ferentes". OK then. If I take the timber-producing species off in that direction, you are then free either to use Categoria:Ligna, or, if you prefer, to abandon it, mark it for deletion, and create a differently-named category instead.
I've now done that. So "Species that supply wood" are at Categoria:Species ligna ferentes, while "Wood" remains at Categoria:Ligna until Iacobus or someone else decides on the best term. Incidentally, I see that en:wiki confuses these two concepts in its category structure. I don't think that's a good example to follow. Our "Species ligna ferentes" corresponds to the Spanish es:Categoría:Maderas: I imagine that other wikis will gradually separate the concepts as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A similar problem arises for me at Disputatio Categoriae:Monetae. If you feel like commenting there, please do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's nice to be creating all those new categories[fontem recensere]

That's nice to be creating all those new categories, but where are their interwiki links?! IacobusAmor 13:42, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead and add them. What did your last servant die of? :)
(In case this looks rude, I should explain that all these new categories were left by yourself as redlinks, Iacobus. So I am acting as your servant -- but I'll only do it up to a point. Otherwise you would be "forcing people who care about Vicipaedia's quality to spend time that they'd more happily be spending otherwise", and I'm sure you don't want to do that!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ut tauro textile rubrum, sic Andreae categoria rubra! :) IacobusAmor 14:44, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well observed. But in case this didn't come across in my earlier comment, I think what you're doing for Vicipaedia's botany and zoology is increasingly awesome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:51, 10 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50 000[fontem recensere]

Ne nimium gaudeatis ... sed paginam numero 50,000 nuper creavimus!

Don't anybody get excited, but I think we've just reached 50,000! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alleluia! Nos hoc celebrare possumus volumusque!! Furti 20:07, 11 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macte virtute esto!--Jondel 01:14, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ontario, -onis aut Ontarium, -i?[fontem recensere]

Lemma nostri commentarii Ontario genetivum Ontarionis fortasse significat, et commentarius ipse genetivum esse Ontarionis dicit, commentariusque Ottava genetivum Ontarionus continet, sed verbum Anglicum Mexico—verbi Anglici Ontario simile—Ontarium, -i significat. Quae forma est melius? IacobusAmor 00:04, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My guess is that Ontarium is the obvious latin name, but perhaps the person who wrote the vici article didn't find a source so they used Ontario as a minimalist solution that doesn't require changing the ending. But that is only a guess.-- 03:00, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if 'Mexico' is a good parallel — it comes by way of Spanish, where a final -o suggests a strong correspondence to a Latin second declension. But that isn't the case for 'Ontario' in either French or English, whichever language the native word was mediated through. Still, which is better attested? 'Ontarionis' is common in Google Books through its use in taxonomy, but according to Google it does not occur in (which does use 'Ontarii' at least twice). —Mucius Tever 05:28, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:en: reads: "The province is named after Lake Ontario, which is thought to have been derived from Ontarí:io, a Huron (Wyandot) word meaning 'great lake', or possibly skanadario which means 'beautiful water' in the Iroquoian languages." I'd done some research too, before I saw your answer, Muci, and as you said, there's quite a lot of easily-found 'Ontarionis' around. I myself only found this for 'Ontarii'. Mattie 05:42, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're bringing indigenous languages into play: "The Anglicized name 'Ohio' comes from the Iroquois word ohi-yo’, meaning 'great river'." Yet we're stuck with Ohium, -i. Oh well. IacobusAmor 14:26, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I take it that the weight of the evidence is for Ontario, -onis? The principle of leaving (unattested) nominatives ending in vowels unchanged from the vernacular and letting the other cases sort themselves out as they may is OK with me. Plenty of (short) articles will use only the nominative anyway. IacobusAmor 14:26, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homework[fontem recensere]

Do you maybe know how to say HOMEWORK in latin? Thank you! [Usor:Ivan.milicic3510|Ivan.milicic3510]] 20:36, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

David Morgan gives pensum scholasticum, commentatio scholastica, praescriptum puerile, pensum domesticum, and even pensum (domi faciendum / absolvendum), though the latter's unattested, I believe. Mattie 22:52, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! Thank you very much! Ivan.milicic3510 11:07, 14 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved here from Disputatio Usoris:UV#Homework --UV 20:04, 13 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two translation questions[fontem recensere]

I'm working on a translation of this article from the English Wikipedia, as I saw the porting over as a suggestion over at the Translatio hebdomadalis page. I have the following questions: 1. How would one say "record label" in Latin? 2. How would one properly format the city name of "Sisimiut" into Latin? Brownie Charles 02:49, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless somebody has already provided an attestation, I'd first unpack the term record label. A record in general is 'a thing documented', but you're after the special sense of 'a thing documented on a disk', for which the mere discus might suffice. For 'label', the closest classical word may be scheda. So then for the label on the disc you have a disci scheda. But your text expands that concept by metonymy to mean 'a company that produces record labels (and the discs they're on)' or merely 'a record-producing company'. The usual Latin for 'company' in the sense of 'a trading association' is societas. (See Walt Disney Societas.) So there you go. ¶ As for Sisimiut, Vicipaedia's policy on names would probably have you leave it as it is, for now, unless you find a good attestation out there in the ether. Others may give you an appropriate link. IacobusAmor 03:25, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we've already got a page on Sisimiut. I quite like disci societas, also - I'd used societas discorum in a few articles, but I like it better in the singular, as you put it. Mattie 04:40, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to elaborate a bit on the preceding fine analyses. First, the technical term for commercial labels is pittacium. As regards word order, I find pittacium disci preferable to disci pittacium in titles. In a running text, both word orders are possible. Second, disci societas or societas discorum doesn't quite bring out the fact that 'a record-producing company' is, in the last analysis, a company for (the purpose of) producing records. (Of course, such a company has other purposes as well, such as making money, but this is a different matter.) So, I'd suggest the "dativus finalis" construction, societas discis faciendis or societas disci pittaciis faciendis, depending on what kind of production the company is in. Neander 06:00, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's undoubtedly the best solution. I didn't mention pittacium because Cassell's in its English–Latin section attributes it to Petronius (a peculiar source) and then in its Latin–English section doesn't list the word (perhaps as if it were best avoided?). IacobusAmor 12:25, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old edit toolbar[fontem recensere]

Is anyone here still seeing and using the old edit toolbar, in particular the nine buttons near the end that are highlighted with a red frame below? (If yes, which ones of the nine are you still using?)

Toolbar.PNG Button redirect.pngButton strike.pngButton sup letter.pngButton sub letter.pngButton reflink.pngButton references alt.pngButton array.pngButton nbsp bold.pngButton thinsp.png

These nine buttons were added via a customized javascript (part of MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js) that currently applies to all users. This javascript (slightly, but nevertheless) slows down the time required for loading the page and displaying the page in the browser for everyone, for all page views. The default toolbar was changed a while ago to the new "enhanced edit toolbar", so the old edit toolbar is today used by hardly anyone. Unless there is objection, I will remove the javascript code that adds the nine buttons near the end of the old edit toolbar in a few days' time. --UV 23:55, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use the thinspace button (Button thinsp.png) almost every day. It used to insert an actual thinspace, but for months it's been inserting the characters that constitute the command. I mentioned this point at the time of the changeover. Are you now going to remove even that convenience? I haven't noticed any slowing down of anything. I just tried it (by clicking the "recensere" button) on Vicipaedia's longest article, Cultura, and the edit screen appeared, ready for editing, in less than two seconds. That duration doesn't seem onerous enough to worry about. Presumably, shorter files would take much less time. IacobusAmor 00:22, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never used that toolbar. I also (sorry, Iacobe) never use thinspace, because thinspace on both my browsers shows up in text as an irritating little square. My habit is to use the special characters at the foot of the edit screen, not the toolbar. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that true of both methods of coding a thinspace? For example, in CFA, the number for magnitudo in the "data [with a lowercase dee] nationis" box is 9 631 419, the spaces coded with (actual) thinspaces by the button as it used to be, whereas in Aegyptus, the number for numerus incolarum in the "Data [with an uppercase dee] nationis" box is 81 713 520, the spaces coded with "&" and "thinsp;" by the button as it now appears in the toolbar: do you see a difference? The only apparent disadvantage with using actual thinspaces is that they allow numbers to break at the ends of lines, as in the numbers 42 000 in the second paragraph of Australia and 2 070 408 in the first paragraph of Columbia (as those articles now stand). IacobusAmor 12:16, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks for checking: no difference: I see that little square in both cases. Hence if I want the non-breaking effect I use &nbsp. But, of course, my thinspace problem doesn't matter if it's only me and my computer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrew, yes, some browsers/computers (especially older browsers/computers) display a little square instead of the thinspace character. In my personal view, we can nevertheless use thinsp as it is only a question of time until all browsers/computers then in use will properly display this character (and the little square is probably not a major annoyance). --UV 23:12, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree, it's not a problem meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iacobe, I suppose that you are one of the very few people that still use the old edit toolbar (which is perfectly fine if you prefer it to the new one). I have now added the javascript code that adds the nine extra buttons to your personal Usor:IacobusAmor/monobook.js and I have removed it from MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js that applies to all users. Please tell me if you encounter any problems – but you should not notice any difference other than I have also changed the behaviour of the thinsp button for you so that it inserts the actual thinsp character as you prefer. --UV 23:12, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The old button isn't appearing where it used to on the edit-screen, but I see it down below, where the old clickable em-dashes and en-dashes are, so all seems well. IacobusAmor 14:55, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motto, Georgia[fontem recensere]

Coat of Arms of the Bagrationi of Mukhrani.svg

Hi! Could anyone here please interpret what the motto shown on this image means and how it's properly spelled? Thank you very much in advance. Sorry about the poor image quality, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere else. (I know there's an SVG version on commons, but the text on that one is based on this raster file). - Ssolbergj 23:58, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"tunica illa inconsutilis desuper contexta per totum." Confer: "Erat autem tunica inconsutilis desuper contexta per totum" (Evangelium secundum Ioannem 19:23). IacobusAmor 00:32, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Thanks very much! - Ssolbergj 20:44, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoriae sanctorum[fontem recensere]

Should martyrs be categorized under both "Sancti" and "Martyres," as with Sancta Agatha and Alexander I? or, since the latter category is a subcategory of the former, should they be categorized solely as "Martyres," as with Thomas a Becket and Thomas Cranmer? IacobusAmor 12:39, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't normally put the same article in a subcategory and its immediate supercategory. I don't know that much about martyrs. Are all of them saints? If not, the categorization should maybe be changed. But if all martyrs are saints, the categorization is OK and our rule would tell us that on any particular page the category "Martyres" makes the category "Sancti" unnecessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Believe it or not, we're in agreement here. Not all martyrs are saints, or even Christians, but it's likely that Categoria:Martyres was designed for Christian saints of the undivided (and then the Roman Catholic) church; note that Categoria:Martyres Ecclesiae Anglicae is a subcategory of it. Perhaps a bot could remove Categoria:Sancti from all sets of articles having both categories (that and Categoria:Martyres). IacobusAmor 13:46, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomina sanctorum[fontem recensere]

In titles and lemmata, should the word Sanctus precede the name of each saint, as with Sanctus Adalbertus and Sancta Agnes? or should it not, as with Abgarus V and Adeluoldus? At the moment, Vicipaedia uses both styles, with many examples of each. IacobusAmor 12:39, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take it you're talking about people only, not about places named after them. Yes, we have discussed this, but I'm hanged if I know where. The consensus was, if I remember, that Sanctus is potentially POV, and was never used in the person's lifetime, so it is preferable not to use it in biographical pagenames, certainly not as first word. It may be needed for disambiguation (many early saints had only one name) and in that case we can put it in parentheses after the name. Clearly no one has hunted them down; I would encourage you to move Sanctus away from first place in biographical pagenames.
As for the lemma, that may well depend who wrote the article :) Logically it isn't part of the person's biography (for the reason given above); it's part of their "fama" or "fortuna". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, again we're in agreement. Categoria:Sancti shows at a glance the three possibilities for saints: a bare name (e.g., Acacius), a name preceded by an adjective (Sanctus Adalbertus), and a name followed by a parenthetical adjective as a result of the discretiva process (Albanus (sanctus)). Whether the removal of a gratuitous Sanctus/Sancta in titles & lemmata can be effected by a bot is unknown to me. IacobusAmor 13:46, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll see if a bot-owner comments. I suspect it's not possible, because the choice of a new name for the article would require intelligent thought. (Hence we often find such things difficult ourselves!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was sure we had commented this before. It is all a matter, in the end, if they are famous because they are saints (St. George, St. Sebastian, St. Justus and Pastor, St. James, etc), or they if were famous and important for other reasons (Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Tomas Becket, Louis IX, Ferdinand III, etc. Even Ignatius de Loyola). Of course, again, we're back to POV's...--Xaverius 15:39, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case this helps, UVbot could move the pages if we agree on new titles here. Please propose new titles here (or add something like non movenda for titles that are ok). This, however, would still require manual cleanup of the pages afterwards so that the lemma mentioned in the first sentence will again correspond to the new title.
UVbot has moved the pages. Now, they require manual cleanup so that the lemma mentioned in the first sentence will again correspond to the new title. --UV 23:30, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cleanup is done (together with more or less development of the articles).--Utilo 21:36, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--UV 22:24, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliqua nomina proposui. Aliis pergere (et corrigere) suadeo! Saepe utile est in alias Vicipaedias spectare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cur "Matthaeus (apostolus)" sed "Marcus (evangelista)" &c? Neander 13:14, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incuria mea, sine dubio. Corrige igitur, mi Neander! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marcus fuit evangelista, sed non apostolus!--Utilo 19:03, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita quidem. Pudet me ignoratiae meae. Neander 18:00, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gualterius socius Sancti Adalari Erfurtensis fuisse videtur (cf. [6]); nihil de vita eius vel de vi in posteros reperire possum.--Utilo 20:52, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optime fecisti, Utilo! Necesse est igitur aliquid aliunde exstare de Gualterio; pro tempore scripsi "Gualterius presbyter". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:07, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On preserving eighteenth-century typographical conventions[fontem recensere]

Because Latin is the language of biological taxonomy, Vicipaedia has the problem of whether to uppercase or lowercase the names of plants & animals. For months now, a variably named friend, who today goes by the name of "," occasionally pops up to change lowercase taxa into uppercase ones. Today, at his hands, "Scientia quae amphibiis cum reptilibus studet herpetologia vocatur" became "Scientia quae Amphibiis cum Reptilibus studet herpetologia vocatur." Here, the context is taxonomical, and so the capitalization may be appropriate; but in more "ordinary" contexts, the capitalization can jar the eyes—as it would, say, in English if we were to read that St. Francis was talking with the Birds, rather than with the birds. (Who are these Mr. & Mrs. Bird? one might ask.) The survival of eighteenth-century typographical conventions here, particularly when the custom in academic Latin for more than a century now has been to use lowercasing more than vernacular languages do, remains curious. Are we never to speak of amphibians and reptiles and insects and fish and birds, but must always speak of Amphibians and Reptiles and Insects and Fish and Birds? Are we never to speak of mere elms (ulmi), but always to speak of the mighty Elms (Ulmi)? ¶ If we're to continue to use both conventions (the antique and the modern), a contextual criterion for deciding which to use could be the presence or absence of an explicit taxonomical sign. For example, avis in an unmarked context would be spelled in the modern manner:

Ciconia nigra est magna avis familiae Ciconiidarum

(it's one of many creatures we know in common parlance as birds); but with a taxonomical sign, it would follow the antique manner:

Ciconiiformes sunt ordo classis Avium

(it's one of a group of technically defined things). Even there, though, one wonders. Vicipaedia's definition of Aves begins:

Aves . . . sunt classis animalium


Aves . . . sunt classis Animalium.

Similarly, in all the definitions I've checked, the English Wikipedia lowercases bird even when it's in a taxonomy-emphasizing context, just as Vicipaedia does above with animalium. Do people have thoughts on this? More particularly,, why are you capitalizing so many nouns? IacobusAmor 14:41, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Germanisms? Germanophile?--Xaverius 15:33, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliquanto pertinens: De specierum nominibus[fontem recensere]

The line between scientific and non-scientific names gets pretty blurry with species. I came across the problem (so to speak) while writing about foxes: "vulpes velox" seems like a perfectly normal, common name for an animal (cf. "swift fox" in English) but "vulpes vulpes" is clearly scientific (no one talks about foxes foxes — they're red foxes). It feels silly to constantly capitalize and italicize "vulpes velox," but matching with "vulpes vulpes" seems important as well. Could it be argued, then, that many Latin names can work as both scientific and common names? If that's the case, then it seems you could either talk of vulpes veloces or of Vulpes veloces; but of Vulpes vulpes or of vulpes fulvae, not vulpes vulpes. I think that in articles unrelated to biology, the 'common' name, if there is one, should be used instead of the scientific one, just like on :en: they usually talk of red foxes and not Vulpes vulpes. In biology pages (for instance on the actual page de vulpibus velocibus), I think the scientific name should be used for the species. What do you think?

... mostly, really, my point is that I don't think it's necessary to capitalize and italicize some species' names in every situation. Mattie 19:49, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re using the binomen as a common name—When the species epithet is an adjective, I believe it really is intended to evoke the 'swift fox' effect—Vulpes velox is a kind of vulpes that doesn't have its own particular one-word name, and one could even just call it a vulpes if one didn't need to be specific (!). The species epithet will be a noun if there is a one-word name for the creature (and I think this distinction was originally significant, as Linnaeus capitalized species epithets in Systema Naturae when they were nouns—and Germanesque capitalizing nouns in general was not a feature of the running text). Although absolute tautonymy like Vulpes vulpes is a weird case, even with Linnaeus' original Canis vulpes the "common" name to use would still be vulpes. Using that principle for the template Felidae, I wrote acinonyx (for Acinonyx jubatus), leo (for Panthera leo), neofeles (for Neofelis nebulosa), onça (for Panthera onca), etc. I do believe there are those here who disagree with me on this, though. —Mucius Tever 14:14, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My instinct is to capitalize when the context explicitly marks an entity as a part of a taxonomic system and to lowercase when it deploys the entity in a "common" manner. Thus with the insects:
Periplaneta est insectum familiae Blattidarum.
Blattidae sunt familia insectorum ordinis Blattodeorum.
Blattodea sunt arthropoda classis Insectorum.
Likewise, seems right to speak of "Acinonyx jubatus" (capitalized & italicized) at first mention, but then later in the text (lowercased & roman) as "hic acinonyx," or "acinonyx quem observabamus," or whatever. IacobusAmor 15:30, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic taxobox[fontem recensere]

Could a kind programmer import the automatic taxobox so that it works here, as in Abarema? Or instead of being a newfangled box, is that an old-fashioned one, which should be avoided? IacobusAmor 15:21, 18 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vicilibri[fontem recensere]

I want to make croatian dictionary. But how to say it on latin. Is this ok: "Glossarium Croatice"? (Why the name of language ends on -e? e.g. Glossarium Italice, Glossarium Hispanice)

Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 10:15, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-e is an adverbial termination: Croatice means "in Croatian". It would be better Latin to write "Glossarium Croaticum" (neuter adjective, because "glossarium" is neuter). "Glossarium Italice" and "Glossarium Hispanice" are not really good Latin titles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:25, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerici?[fontem recensere]

Up to now we haven't consistently categorised priests/clergy geographically. I would like this to be possible because I'm developing English history on Vicipaedia. Is it OK to use the word "Clerici" as a general term (of which e.g. Episcopi and Archiepiscopi will be subcategories)? Is there a better word? If Clerici is OK I will gradually populate the category Categoria:Clerici Britanniae that I have just created; if not, I'll recreate it under a better name.

This doesn't affect categories for the sect/church these people belonged to: e.g. Categoria:Episcopi Ecclesiae Anglicae is a religious, not a geographical category, and I don't suggest changing it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a side note, there are two approaches to "profession-by-country" categories: en.wikipedia allows such categories liberally, while de.wikipedia has practically no such categories at all: On de.wikipedia, articles about people are added to one category indicating their profession and to another category indicating their country (the equivalent in our case at hand would be Categoria:Clerici and Categoria:Incolae Britanniae). That way, de.wikipedia needs to maintain far less categories and still has as much information available as en.wikipedia (accessible via Vicipaedia:CatScan). --UV 22:35, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposed category would seem to be equivalent to en:Clergy by nationality. As the English category shows, it's going to include bishops, cardinals, chaplains, clergymen, imams, lamas, ministers, popes, prelates, priests, and rabbis. Does clericus (a Late Latin term) cover all these? This category is a subset of en:Religious leaders by nationality. What's the best term for that? duces religiosi ? duces religionum ? And how are "clergymen" to be distinguished from "religious leaders"? ¶ Incidentally, the subcategory en:American clergy includes en:Michael Arthur Newdow, the famous atheist! IacobusAmor 00:13, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for both of your thoughts. What we do at present, as you both know, is somewhere between German and English: under "Incolae ..." of national units we have a smallish range of subdivisions, scriptores, eruditi, musici, athletae etc., which means that the "incolae" categories do not become enormously large. I know the high-maintenance implications of the full-on English method, which is why I am forever banging on to Iacobus about not imitating it! In a way, my suggestion aims to round off the small range of profession-by-country categories that we have. Up to now cardinales and the like are categorised geographically only as "incolae" of national units -- which otherwise applies in principle only those who are not notable for their specialised or professional activities at all, e.g. lovers of famous people: not the ideal company for a self-respecting clericus or religiosus.
Iacobus confirms (I hadn't checked) that en:wiki does have an equivalent of this wide-ranging category, and calls it by a name cognate with Latin "clerici". That's useful to know. (My feeling is that atheists don't qualify; indeed, they don't even enter the examination. Whether Aleister Crowley would qualify is another question.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newdow is catalogued as a clergyman because he is! He's an ordained minister of the en:Universal Life Church, whose ministers "are allowed to follow their own belief system path. For example, ministers of the Church may follow a traditional Christian belief system, they may follow other world religions, they may blend various faith traditions, or they may be agnostic or atheist." So the pertinent criterion in your category will be to exclude nonclerical atheists, but to include ordained atheists! IacobusAmor 12:53, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my suggestion aims to round off the small range of profession-by-country categories that we have – ok, no objection! --UV 23:14, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scapha Polynesia[fontem recensere]

Scapha Polynesia is a misleading translation of 'outrigger canoe'. The article states that these supposedly Polynesian things are elements of cultures outside of Polynesia, including Africa. Vicipaedia's system isn't allowing the creation of a disputatio page for this point (where it belongs). Why is that? IacobusAmor 14:17, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems OK now. I have just created Disputatio:Scapha Polynesia: see if you can add to it. There have been a few brief hiccups recently, I guess because of the change to a new version of MediaWiki, but the problem passes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but time's up for the day! Maybe another time! IacobusAmor 15:00, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"why infobox?" (Andreas frater)[fontem recensere]

Why not?! IacobusAmor 19:24, 23 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Falsae in commentariis botanicis zoologicisque res[fontem recensere]

Iterum atque iterum. IacobusAmor 15:45, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortasse oportet omnes IP a Guadalajara, Mexico obstruere. Petimusne?-- 10:47, 11 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse necesse est nobis eum in Hispanico sermone scribere.--Xaverius 13:34, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iam egomet ei scripsi Hispanice iterum iterumque, sed is meas rogationes explanationesque Hispanicas iterum iterumque omnino neglexit, evidenter ex voluntate eius (ut credo). Nescio autem quomodo obstruere omnes IP ex Guadalajara.--Rafaelgarcia 15:35, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omnes tibi non necesse est obstruere: solum 189.196..., 200.56..., 200.77..., et 200.92.... ad rerum statum pertinent. IacobusAmor 12:22, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obstruere nolo ego (sicut supra dixi) sed, si alius magistratus obstruendum suadet, nihil obstat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cur obstruere nolis tu? IacobusAmor 15:52, 1 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Iterum atque iterum scribebas "genus mammalium multituberculatum," Anglice 'a multituberculated genus of mammals'. Secundum autem Wikipedia (Anglice), significationem ut videtur petebas 'a genus of multituberculated mammals'. Hae significationes non sunt una et eadem. Ergo, amabo te, definitionem omnino resarci. ¶ Etiam erat mendum "familia mammalium multituberculatum." ¶ Etiam "familia exstinctum," &c. IacobusAmor 04:39, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 16:56, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 17:39, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 15:45, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 15:49, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 16:15, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 16:45, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Vide supra. IacobusAmor 17:11, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Quid nunc significat sententia "Acinetobacter est genus bacterium gramma-negativa sunt"? Eius grammatica est res mira. IacobusAmor 13:42, 11 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Quid significabat sententia Legionella est genus bacteriorum gramma negativorum sunt ? Anglice significare potest 'Legionella is a genus of negative bacteria. A gram. They are.' Ineptias garriebas. IacobusAmor 12:46, 12 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Haec adfirmatio est falsa: "Hydrosaurus est genus reptilium species agamidarum familiae" (Anglice: 'Hydrosaurus is a genus of reptiles, a species of the agamids' family'). Genus non est species. IacobusAmor 17:48, 19 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiae "Hydrophis est genus species hydrophiidarum familiae" est falsa. IacobusAmor 17:36, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiae "Cyrtodactylus est genus species gekkonidarum familiae" est falsa. Praeterea, grammatica sententiae "Laticauda est genus species marinus hydrophiidearum serpens familiae" est falsissima. Qua pro causa Vicipaediam sic obsides? Paene nihil ut videtur de nostra lingua dilecta contra multos experiendi menses (et fortasse quidem annos) didicisti. IacobusAmor 17:36, 20 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiae "Streptomyces est genus bacterium gramma positivorum" est falsa. Cur nostram linguam sic dedignaris? IacobusAmor 13:57, 21 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiarum "Anomochilidae est familia serpentum squamatarum ordinis" et "Uropeltidae est familia serpentum squamatorum ordinis" et "Xenopeltidae est familia serpentum squamatorum ordinis" est falsa. Si Anglice loqueris: Is there a chance that you'll pause for a moment to learn as much Latin grammar as students typically learn in the first two weeks of study? IacobusAmor 11:37, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiae "Ctenophorus est genus lacerta agamidarum famliae" est falsa. If you're the same person as the contributor above, you seem not yet, after months or seemingly years of effort, to know even the simplest of Latin grammatical rules. Every article that you've begun has been desirable (and thank you), but the appearance of almost every one of your texts has lowered the grammatical standard of Vicipaedia, and because of the unrelenting obtuseness of this process might therefore be considered an instance of vandalism. If you do have goodwill toward Vicipaedia, is it within the realm of possiblity that you'll take an hour or two and study the first grammatical lesson in any of numerous good textbooks? IacobusAmor 20:35, 1 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Grammatica sententiae "Limulus est genus species cheliceratum arthropodum phylorum" est mirifice falsa. IacobusAmor 13:29, 2 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Ecce grammatica: "Cnemidophorus est genus lacerta teiidarum familiae." Why do you keep doing this? Anybody can make a grammatical error, but your insistent (and anonymous) nongrammaticality, in the simplest of syntactical constructions, might be regarded as a form of vandalism. IacobusAmor 18:45, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Ecce grammatica: "Triturus est genus amphibium [sic] Salamandridarum familiae." IacobusAmor 10:56, 5 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Poaceae est familia plantarum florentium Poalium ordinis." IacobusAmor 16:12, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuan "Laurales est ordo plantarum florentium." Simile: "Lauraceae est familia plantarum florentium Lauralium ordinis." IacobusAmor 16:12, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Oleaceae est familia plantarun [sic] florentium Lamialium ordinis." IacobusAmor 16:12, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Turdidae est familia avium Passeriformum [sic] ordinis." IacobusAmor 16:12, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Liliales est ordo plantarum florentium." Simile definitionem tuam "Liliaceae est familia plantarum florentium Lilialium ordinis." IacobusAmor 16:12, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Amaryllidaceae est familia plantarum florentium Asparagalium ordinis." Simile definitionem tuam "Iridaceae est familia plantarum florentium Asparagalium ordinis." IacobusAmor 15:00, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O amice, usor sine nomine[fontem recensere]

Eae sunt, non est. Vide definitionem tuam "Asparagaceae est familia plantarum florentium Asparagalium ordinis." Simile definitionem tuam "Vitaceae est familia plantarum florentium in ordine Vitalium." IacobusAmor 15:00, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Caryophyllaceis[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae non est. IacobusAmor 12:22, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Polygonaceis[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae—hae multae res—non est. IacobusAmor 12:22, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Ranunculaceis[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae—hae plantae—non est. IacobusAmor 13:35, 28 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Ranunculalibus[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae—hae plantae, hae multae plantae!—non est. IacobusAmor 13:35, 28 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Sapindalibus[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae plantae non est. IacobusAmor 15:52, 1 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Cerce[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, significatio tuae sententiae "Cercis est genus plantarum florentium species Caesalpinioidearum" est obscura, quod genus non est species. IacobusAmor 15:54, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Phaseolo[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, tua sententia "Phaseolus est genus species" est falsa, quod genus non est species. IacobusAmor 15:54, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Rutaceis[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, eae plantae non est. IacobusAmor 14:24, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Piciformibus[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, grammatica tuae sententiae "Piciformes sunt ordo est" est falsa. IacobusAmor 14:19, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Hydrocharitaceis[fontem recensere]

Eheu, O, usor sine nomine, hae plantae non est. IacobusAmor 14:58, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Gesneriaceis[fontem recensere]

O, amigo sin nombre, hae res ubique sunt, non est. IacobusAmor 13:02, 14 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Cicere[fontem recensere]

O, amigo anónimo, grammatica significatioque tuae sententiae "Cicer est genus . . . species" falluntur, quia genus non est species. IacobusAmor 13:31, 14 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Scrophulariaceis[fontem recensere]

O, Scrophulariaceae non est quia eae sunt. IacobusAmor

De Arache[fontem recensere]

O care, Arachis non est "genus plantarum florentium species": genus non est species. IacobusAmor 12:05, 17 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Cyprinidis[fontem recensere]

O carissime, Cyprinidae non est quia eae sunt. IacobusAmor 13:17, 17 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Taxodio[fontem recensere]

O carissime, genus non est species. IacobusAmor 14:30, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Poeciliidis[fontem recensere]

O carissime, hae res non est, quia eae sunt. IacobusAmor 11:22, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Rhizobio[fontem recensere]

O enixissime, verbum bacterium non est genetivum. IacobusAmor 12:41, 22 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Bifidobacterio[fontem recensere]

O enixissime, grammatica sententiae "Bifidobacterium est genus bacterium" est falsa, quia verbum bacterium non est genetivum. IacobusAmor 11:34, 23 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Hydrophilidis[fontem recensere]

O enixissime, ecce sententia "Hydrophilidae est familia." Yes, they is! They is! IacobusAmor 12:32, 31 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latine[fontem recensere]

How to say on latin "You are logged in as...(+ name, eg. You are logged in as Ivan)".

Thank you! Ivan.milicic3510 16:05, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The message on login at Vicipaedia is "Apud Vicipaediam agnosceris ut "Ivan"". I'm not sure this is OK; ut usually introduces a clause (with a verb), and there's no clause here. One might write "Apud Vicipaediam agnosceris nomine "Ivan"" -- you are recognised on Vicipaedia, your name being "Ivan". Perhaps someone else will comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In classical Latin, the conjunction ut, before an appositive noun, implies a comparison (e.g., canem suum colit ut deum 'he worships his dog like (= as if it were) a god'). Therefore, I'd prefer Apud Vicipaediam agnosceris nomine "Ivan". Neander 18:43, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox canales televisifici[fontem recensere]

Vide infobox. Menda: sedes non est nomen masculinum! + tempus principi? + dominus? proppagatio? + terrester? + satelliter? (I'd have put this on the appropriate disputatio page, but Vicipaedia is making that page a blue & uneditable screen today.) IacobusAmor 15:09, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O tempores! O morus! ... Melius est hic disputare. Latinitas omnium paginarum, in quibus haec capsa imponitur, est pessima; oportet igitur aut
  1. capsam omnino recensere, si quis vult, una cum paginis annexis; aut
  2. omnem inceptum de programmata televisifica Italiana delere sive in scriptorium movere. Quid faciendumst? Fortasse quidam Italice loquens hanc rem explicare vult ad usorem L'Elvetico? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonne, si capsam reparemus, onmia menda in paginis automatice evanescunt? --Alex1011 17:46, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non omnia :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 26 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si aliquid putatis huic usori Italiane dicendum, ipse libenter praesto. --Poecus 20:43, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In linguis Polynesiis, U non est V[fontem recensere]

In case anybody has looked into Tonga lately, our anonymous geographer has been forcing Polynesian vowels into the Roman alphabet in an impossible way. For example, he renders the proper name Maui as Mavi, probably (one hopes!) not knowing that, in Polynesian languages, the stress of a base usually falls on its next-to-last mora, and this word is therefore pronounced more like Maúi than, as the wrong spelling implies, like Mávi or Maví. Praeterea, in linguis Polynesiis, /u/ et /v/ sunt phonemata dissimilia. Exempli gratia, in lingua Samoana, ua est collum (et urbane pluvia), sed va est spatium ; āua est piscis generis Velamugilis, sed āva est honor ; taua est bellum, sed tava est arbor generis Pometiae ; und so weiter. But not to worry! Let's allow our geographer to finish, and then I'll go in and tidy up. IacobusAmor 15:36, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems a good idea to me. I have plans to take a second look at Birmania some time. The Geographus quietly does very useful work, and is not possessive once articles are finished. An almost-perfect Wikipedian in fact. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 27 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Species Typica" in taxobox[fontem recensere]

In taxobox, mandatum "|type_species" gignit verba Species Typica, sed secundum Stearn, "type-species of a genus" recte est typus generis (non, exempli gratia, typica generis species). IacobusAmor 14:11, 28 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romania (linguistica)[fontem recensere]

Some cleanup seems to be necessary: Romania (discretiva) Nr. 4 links to Linguae Romanicae; on the other hand there is Europa Latina without any links; other languages differ: English distinguishes between en:Latin Europe and en:Romance-speaking Europe, other languages only have Latin Europe, German in contrast de:Romania (Linguistik). Which way to follow?--Utilo 17:46, 28 Februarii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see a true difference between "Latin Europe" and "Romance-speaking Europe", it seems something that en:w has made up. better to choose a name for the region of Europe in which Romance languages are spoken, which is not Romania (I do not feel that it should redirect to linguae Romanicae either).--Xaverius 16:26, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true, though, that the term Romania is used among philologists for this concept of "region of Europe where Romance languages are spoken" (which I guess is why it's used in this way on de:wiki). So, whatever term we choose, this concept still needs to appear in the Romania (discretiva) page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we could find a reference to "Romance-speaking europe" = "Romania", then it's simple, as from Romania (discretiva) wr can create a link to Romania (linguistica).--Xaverius 17:59, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a second thought, maybe Europa Romanica may be better. then we would need to make a clear difference between Europa Romanica and Latina (if such a difference truly exists)--Xaverius 18:02, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't feel strongly about this, but I think Romania (regio linguistica) would correspond with the usage of philologists. The concept is easy to define, though we might wish that those philologists had chosen a word with fewer alternative meanings. I don't know whether we can find an attestation in Latin (for this or for any other term!); if we can't, we can still treat it as a loanword: I have seen it used in this exact form in German, French and English at least.
It would then be obviously quite different from Europa Latina, which seems to be a political/cultural theory and seems (from the English article) to be a bit difficult to define. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:41, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De thema originis huius verbi (Romania), librum habeo ubi scribitur qui in saeculo V Orosius dixit:
"Nam ego quoque ipse virum referentem audivi se familiarissimum Ataulpho apud Narbonam fuisse, ac de eo saepe sub tetificatione didicisse, quod ille referre solitus esset se in primis ardenter inhiasse ut, obliterato Romano nomine, Romanum omne solum Gothorum imperium et faceret et vocaret, essetque, ut vulgariter loquar, Gothia quod Romania fuisset."
Nisi classicus est verbum, in antiquitate posteriore iam usabatur. -- 22:01, 29 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aiuto per traduzione[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Scusate se parlo in italiano. Sto preparando una voce per il progetto in lingua italiana, sugli usi linguistici a Ragusa (Dalmazia). Ho bisogno di un aiuto per la traduzione del seguente passo: "Primum illud non deest incommodi, quod ego cunctis, omnes mihi sunt ydiote, per interpretem agenda omnia (...) Idque quoque tedium aget, quod ignaros latini sermonis nescio mihi barbari, quorum opus habes, admoneri.". Qualcuno mi può aiutare? Grazie!--Presbite 08:53, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve, Presbite. Primieramente, non marca quella gabaccio, che io agli tutti, tutti a me sono idioti, è necessario tutti attraverso interprete fare. E anche tedio, che non posso gli ignoranti della lingua latina, a me barbari, di chi hanno bisogno, ammonire. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 18:21, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
spero te adjuvare potuisse, quum sermonis Italiani me non tam peritus quam sim Latini. :-( Dic, si aliquid false transferam. (spero che potevo aiuvare, mentre non posso così parlare il italiano che latino. Dimmi se qualcosa male traducevo.) --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 18:22, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ciao Presbite. Vediamo che posso fare nel caso del messere Joannes Conversini. Il Latino è medievale dunque la traduzione può essere mala. Faccio una traduzione con complementi fra parentesi:
Primo, a questa (situazione) non manca l'incommodità perche per tutti quelli compiti dove non conosco tutte le parole (aliene) ho bisogno di un traduttore (...) E questo mi da fastidio dunque ammonisco quelli che non sanno la lingua Latina chi io non so la (lingua) Slava.
Qualche Assunzioni:
ydiote mi sembra una parola che significa un frase/parola nella lingua locale di Ragusa (i.e. Slavo)
tedium forse è taedium
barbari referisce alla lingua volgare -> Slava
Spero che questo è utile per te. El Suizo 20:15, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salve Presbite, io sono italiano. Vorrei aiutarti nella traduzione, e confesso che la frase è difficile, soprattutto per quel mihi barbari, che mi ha proprio spiazzato e l'unica ipotesi che mi viene in mente è che non si riferisca alla lingua ma agli abitanti. In secondo luogo, ydiote credo venga dal greco Idiòtes, che vuol dire tra l'altro "ignorante, inesperto" (qui s'intende della lingua latina). Cunctis non può essere "in tutte le cose /compiti" perché sarebbe una ripetizione di omnia agenda. La traduzione potrebbe essere:
"Per prima cosa non manca l'inconveniente che io con chiunque -tutti per me sono inesperti (della lingua)- devo svolgere tutte le mansioni tramite l'interprete (...) e anche questo dà fastidio, che gli ignoranti della lingua latina (che sono) stranieri per me, dei quali c'è bisogno, non so come possano essere ammoniti."
è la soluzione migliore che ho trovato, cioè ipotizzando un pronome sottinteso o omesso: (qui) mihi barbari. Spero vada bene. Comunque se mi viene in mente qualcos'altro te lo farò sapere.--Poecus 22:10, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grazie a tutti: siete stati fantastici!!!--Presbite 10:45, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foundation Images Policy[fontem recensere]

(copy this from the disputatio of our pagina prima--Xaverius 17:57, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi everyone,
I am Yosri from Malay Wikipedia. Recently I was informed by certain parties that MS Wiki need to delete any images tagged as Non-Commercial under Foundation Licensing policy. After I have done some studies, I realised that Wikipedia Foundations is moving towards allowing commercialises all images, as such they are acting on behalf of commercial company to require all images loaded with tagging Non-Commercial in all Wiki Project to be removed, including those loaded in local Wiki. You are only allowed to licenses your images under "free content", which specifically allows commercial reuse, example GDLF 1.2. Certain images is exempted under a very narrow EDP ("exemption doctrine policy") definition. If you all already aware about this, please ignore this comment. Otherwise, for more details please visit Yosri 17:41, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is irrelevant to us, since we got rid of locally uploaded images a while ago. All images are now stored on commons. --UV 21:42, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mystery blockage[fontem recensere]

The past few days, I've tried to create an article, but the system won't let me. The message reported is "Per nexum progressus es ad paginam quae nondum exsistit aut iam deleta est, vide acta deletionum. Novam paginam si vis creare, in capsam infra praebitam scribe. Vide paginam auxilii si plura cognoscere vis. Si hic es propter errorem, solum Retrorsum in navigatro tuo preme." The "capsa infra praebita" is blue (instead of white) and—contrary to what the error message says—doesn't permit anything to be written to it. Of course the page doesn't exist (because it hasn't been created yet), and any of about seven tested permutations of the title haven't been deleted either—so this error message appears itself to be an error. Does anybody know what's going on? IacobusAmor 19:48, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn't a question of the page having been deleted -- in any case, even if it had been, you would still be entitled to re-create it.
Do you mean (sorry to reply to a question with a question) that you haven't been able to create any page, under any title, since 15 February? (It looks as if that's when you last started a page.) If so, it seems to me like a dispute between you and your browser, or between your browser and the new MediaWiki version. Three tests you could do.
  1. Log out, come back to Vicipaedia as an anonymous IP, and try to start a page
I tried that just now, and it works, but I don't want to create pages anonymously. IacobusAmor 20:31, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I understand. In view of what you say below, we may have to wait until UV comments. In the meanwhile, if you're keen to create a page, anonymously may be the only option. From the observed facts, it seems that if you create and save a very brief page anonymously, and then log in again, you would be able to go back to it and add text under your proper name. Maybe try that as an experiment? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but time's up for today, so we'll try again tomorrow morning. ¶ Incidentally, as I just now proved, the same problem occurs in the English Wikipedia; that fact may get UV off the hook! IacobusAmor 20:52, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Use a different browser on your own computer, if you can, and try to start a page
  2. Use any browser on any other computer you can get access to, and try to start a page
These tests would help to see where the problem is. Someone else may have different suggestions ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:14, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Has it been that long, since 15 February? (My, but tempus fugit!) I decided a while ago to stop creating pages until I could update my homepage, but then I saw a couple of things (including a category!) that I could have added in the past few days. So it's unclear whether the blockage started around 16 February or more recently. Maybe the problem began when UV did something to my system, trying to preserve the thinspace button on the toolbar, but evidently failing, as that button has disappeared. ¶ Later: Or maybe not; see above. IacobusAmor 20:29, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The message you reported is not an error message but the standard message that appears when an article does not exist yet and can be created. I cannot imagine what exactly might cause the problem you describe, most probably a problem in your browser. Let me add a fourth suggestion to the three suggestions of Andrew: Clear your browser cache (how to do that depends on which browser you are using, a typical path would be Options -> Settings/Preferences -> Cache -> Clear entire cache). --UV 22:06, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That didn't work. Vicipaedia still won't let me create articles. IacobusAmor 22:52, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the problem appears on en.wikipedia as well, you might also ask for advice on en.wikipedia (en.wikipedia has a larger community than la.wikipedia ;-) and perhaps someone else there has a better idea on how to solve your problem).
I definitely did nothing to your system/your PC/browser etc.! (I plainly cannot.) What I did a few days ago was to move the javascript code that adds additional buttons to the #Old edit toolbar to your Usor:IacobusAmor/monobook.js. --UV 22:06, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This process did not put the thinsp button back where it was. IacobusAmor 14:25, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tested this in my Usor:UV/monobook.js and it worked fine for me, but if you suspect that this caused the problem, you could try blanking your Usor:IacobusAmor/monobook.js (or I or any other admin could delete that page, if you prefer this). But if you encounter the same problem on en.wikipedia, then your la.wikipedia monobook.js is definitely not at fault, since your la.wikipedia monobook.js affects only la.wikipedia, not en.wikipedia or any other wikipedia. Greetings, --UV 22:06, 2 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you do the "blanking" so as to undo what you did. IacobusAmor 14:25, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have done that, since UV isn't around. You will, I expect, lose some buttons. If you notice other unwanted side-effects I can immediately restore the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am able to create pages, without any inhibition, even from anonymous ip, so it isn't Vicipaedia that is doing the blocking. It must be something wrong with your browser or browser settings. Try a different browser if you can to check that this is the case. Or try a different computer such as a friend's.-- 05:27, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We established that I could create pages anonymously, and that's an important clue. (For the record: I followed UV's instructions to clear the browser cache, and I even ate all my cookies, to no avail.) See the next entry, below. IacobusAmor 13:35, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)

The problem has revealed itself! I can create pages—but one wouldn't think so from looking at my monitor. The light-blue screen seemingly in place of the edit screen is a huge, blank, toolbarlike entity, subjoined to the actual toolbar and standing maybe 25 to 30 lines high: it nearly fills the screen and therefore hides the fact that the true edit-screen is below it, discoverable after scrolling. Unable to write to this light-blue object, I wrongly supposed that the edit screen wasn't there. ¶ So now the question is why is Vicipaedia imposing on my screen a useless toolbarlike entity of that size? Surely the pixels on the screen must result from something in the code, so now could a knowledgable programmer go into my file, find the guilty piece of code, and delete it? Since the problem manifested itself after UV had tinkered with the toolbar, that may be the likeliest part of the code in which to start looking. IacobusAmor 13:35, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no clue as to what might cause the effects you describe. If this problem appears on the English wikipedia as well, I would suggest that you ask for advice there. Be prepared that they will probably ask you which browser and what browser version you are using (e. g. Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.6, etc.) --UV 22:05, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translatio peto[fontem recensere]

For the article I have a dream I look for a Latin translation of the title of the political rally AD 1963. It was: March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The actual translation seems not to fit in my eyes. Gratias ago... El Suizo 12:51, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly doesn't, not least because agmen is neuter, so agminem (as the word stands in the current version of the article) is impossible. ¶ For the idiom of 'an attack on', Caesar gives us the idiom oppugnatio + genitive. An agmen is basically 'a driving movement' (hence, 'a line of march' and similar senses), but agmen Vasingtoniae may not be quite right. Closer to Caesar's syntax, using a noun from the same root (agere) with the -tio suffix, would be Actio Vasingtoniae. ¶ For 'for jobs and freedom', a gerundive should work, perhaps in the form of something like ad laborem libertatemque petendas (capiendas?), though 'jobs' are perhaps more accurately translated as pensa or opera. Wait a while, and others may offer better solutions. IacobusAmor 13:17, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vel etiam "Iter Vasingtoniam operis libertatique petendis" ? --Utilo 13:54, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sive "Iter Vasingtoniense ..."? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:26, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accedo!--Utilo 15:59, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optime! I'll change accordingly. El Suizo 21:29, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can not agree. The desired meaning is 'march'.iter will be understood as 'travel/journey/a walk' I feel the best bet is really agmen(accusative).--Jondel 11:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iter is surely OK: one of the first and main senses in Lewis & Short (see here iter) is "a going to a distant place, a journey, and -- of an army -- a march". That's exactly the sense we want: often followed by the accusative for the destination, as Utilo suggested. Whether my suggestion of an adjective "Vasingtoniense" in place of the accusative is acceptable, we might doubt! seemed OK to me :)
Agmen is also a good word for an army etc. on the move, but I haven't encountered agmen + accusative (or any other simple construction) to indicate the destination of this movement. Can that be found? The one apparent example in the dictionary entry cited by Jondel is Cicero, and it turns out not to be what we want: Cicero is talking about when he travels from Brundisium to Rome, not about the agmen making this journey. But maybe I missed something -- tell me if I did.
Incidentally, the link Jondel provides is to another copy of Lewis & Short, apparently not credited, and with a fair number of typos or OCR errors. Lewis & Short is in the public domain, of course. Useful to know it's there, though the version we link to at Formula:Lewshort seems much more reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case the problem isn't clear, it's possible to give a parallel example in English (I think). "March" and "Column" can both, in context, denote an army &c on the move in a certain direction. But "March to Washington" and "March on Washington" are both OK; "Column to Washington" and "Column on Washington" are not. In a similar way, the constructions we can use with "iter" and with "agmen" may be different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)
[Written before the preceding:]
Maybe it will help if potential contributors focus on the fact that it was a march on Washington, not a march to Washington: nobody marched to Washington; and insofar as anything describable as "marching" occurred, it was a march to the Lincoln Memorial. It was not a journey to a distant place: people may have come from far & wide, but the only actual marching was the vague movement of a crowd assembled around the base of the Washington Monument to the area generally on the east side of the Lincoln Memorial. Many "marchers" probably "marched" less than 1000 feet; some simply showed up at the Lincoln Memorial, and didn't "march" at all. (As written descriptions imply, the crowd more or less "oozed" from one place to another; no "line of march," strictly speaking, developed.) The route of this movement, if it can even be considered a route, was entirely contained by a small part of the west portion of the Mall. Wikipedia does not define the event as a march: it defines it as "a large political rally." ¶ Whatever the title of the article, the definition should recognize that the event had nothing like the regular order of a parade: it was a demonstration, itself defined as an "action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of a political or other cause." IacobusAmor 13:32, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! That does change one's view entirely. I had no idea: I imagined something more like Mao's Long March. As you describe it, it was not an iter, and not really an agmen ... still, it called itself a march ... The only difference I see between "march to" and "march on" is that "march on" is warlike while "march to" may be peaceful: this may be my British usage ... how strange! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I was initially drawn to the pattern of oppugnatio + genitive, resulting in the suggestion Actio Vasingtoniae.Other marches on Washington have been proposed or perhaps even held. IacobusAmor 14:35, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I understand now why you suggested that. Maybe it's best after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry If I didn't reply. I was expecting the Holocaust, a ban or something on me.

Here is what I believe 'agmen' really means and thus would be better: a procession or march to show the world or display something like for a religous purpose, festival, or celebrate military victory. Thanks for pointing out the link was a Lewis version. The accussative is because 'apud' is used ('made the speech at the march' apud agmen). Iacobus'ad laborem libertatemque petendas' seems much better because for example latin labor will automaticaly be understood as today's labor (in English). If this was totally Ciceronian, then pensa or opera etc would be better. Please convert to iter if you /anyone really feels this is better or precise. I will not revert Me paenit for my tactlessness.--Jondel 05:59, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that Iacobus has explained to me how this event unrolled, I agree, Jondel, that agmen is a definite possibility :) But I think, if I may, I'll leave further discussion of this to you others -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know exactly, what the whole thing was like - I expected day-long marches from all sides to the capital with a final meeting at Lincoln memorial! If not, agmen to me seems to be the better choice.--Utilo 15:11, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People came from all over the country (presumably the bulk of them from within a few hundred miles of the capital), but they didn't formally parade toward Washington, or apparently even toward the Mall: the event seems to have been an assembly of people who more or less gathered in one place. IacobusAmor 11:32, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observatorium Civitatis Heidelbergae-Konigstulae[fontem recensere]

Observatorium Civitatis Heidelbergae-Konigstulae est inter paginas desideratas "desideratissima". Primo quaerendum est, utrum verbum "observatorium" an potius "specula (astronomica)" pro tali instituto adhibeatur; deinde forma Konigstula(e) male novata esse videtur: Königstuhl (sedes sive thronus regalis) mons est, cuius appellatio Latina (si umquam fuit) mihi ignota est. Propositio 1: Observatorium (sive specula) civitatis Heidelberg-Königstuhl; propositio 2: Observatorium (sive specula) Heidelbergense (-is) in monte Königsstuhl situm (sita).--Utilo 16:39, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends IMO if the observatory is called an observatory or if it is named after its mirror telescope. In general an observatory uses many means to observe, including specula (mirror telescopes). Observatorium therefore is an all inclusive term, specula a very specific one.-- 06:40, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.k. Sounds good to me. Then we'll have "Observatorium Civitatis Heidelbergense (Königstuhl)" - Is there a bot to change all 740 occurrences of "... Konigstulae" to the new version?--Utilo 15:36, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exemplar aliarum linguarum sequens "Civitatis" omittam.--Utilo 21:31, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anglice "top hat"?[fontem recensere]

Salvete! The Vatican's Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis helpfully gives us the translation of bowler hat as petasus meloneus. However, no doubt due to an oversight, they fail to include top hat. Traupman is silent. Many languages (Italian included) call it a cylinder hat, but there is no entry in LRL under cilindro or cappello. A few other languages call it a high crown hat (Spanish), a high hat (Dutch), a form hat (French), a silk hat (Japanese), a pipe hat (Icelandic). In English, the alternate terms are silk hat, cylinder hat, (chimney/stove) pipe hat. What do we call it? Do we go with the apparent majority and use petasus cylindricus, or cylindricus for short? --Robert.Baruch 19:45, 3 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its upper part does look cylindrical, and so, if its shape is its most salient trait, a Latin version of cylindrical hat may be the best term for it, though cylindrical hat sounds odd in English. Compare the following terms and their definitions (in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary):
beaver = a hat made of beaver fur or a fabric imitation
castor = a beaver hat
high hat = BEAVER
opera hat = a man's collapsible top hat consisting usu. of a dull silky fabric stretched over a steel frame
silk hat = a hat with a tall cylindrical crown and a silk-plush finish worn by men as a dress hat
stovepipe = SILK HAT
top hat = a man's tall-crowned hat usu. of beaver or silk
In my experience, a stovepipe is an elongated silk hat (think: Abraham Lincoln), but these definitions don't recognize that distinction. IacobusAmor 14:21, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was Abraham Lincoln's hat truly enormous, or was it just in proportion with his body, which was quite tall? And then there's Isambard Kingdom Brunel whose top hat was truly tall, all out of proportion. Anyway, amusement aside, according to those definitions, "top hat" in today's English probably represents the top-level class of objects we would recognize as hats with a brim and a tall cylinder. But when seen by people in other nations, they may have immediately thought "cylinder" (or pipe, or chimney, or silk, depending on what cluster of neurons fired), and applied that word to describe this class of hats.
One could then go down the route of naming subclasses of top hats, which may have been required when top hats were the fashion, but considering the (to my mind, unfortunate) lack of top hats we see today, there is most likely a consequent non-necessity of assigning names to different types.
So my question is, should the lemma be cylindrus (petasus) -- a cylinder (hat), following the example of many languages -- or petasus cylindricus -- a cylindrical hat? --Robert.Baruch 17:44, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd vote for petasus cylindricus because the object in question is more a kind of hat than a kind of cylinder. Also, the cat in the hat wears one, and he's been established to be the Cattus Petasatus, not a cattus cylindricatus! IacobusAmor 18:20, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fractiones?[fontem recensere]

Nuada, quid putas significare fractiones ? Anglicum 'breakings (to pieces)'? Anglicum verbum fraction Latine est pars. Ut videtur in tuis commentariis, tua fractio est pars urbis vel municipii. IacobusAmor 00:52, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smith's English-Latin Dictionary sensu, ait, arithmetico: fraction = "fractio, quae dicitur". --Alex1011 13:27, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Late Latin, a back-formation from modern English? IacobusAmor 14:14, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The arithmetical sense doesn't yet appear in Alexander Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. (Oxonii: Clarendon Press, 1949. ISBN 0198642040), which does, however, offer "weariness; illness, prostration (of fever patients)". Unhelpful I fear. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The english term fraction comes from the Latin mathematical term fractio, just as do most other arithmetical, geometric and calculus terms. The idiomatic term for a fraction in common latin speech is of course pars, e.g media pars for half, centessima pars for an hundredth. Just as in english you would never say, "give me a fraction of your apple", but you would say " give me a part/piece of your apple"; use fractio sparingly only when explicitly writing about the mathematic concept : which in meaning is part ratio, part division, and part part. Cf. Du Caille-- 05:22, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

traduction - translation[fontem recensere]

Bonjour, hello
Je souhaiterais connaitre la traduction en français ou en anglais / I would like to know the translation in French or in English of this sentences :

Ces phrases se trouvent sur la marqueterie du bureau du Roi au château de Versailles / This sentences are on the bureau du Roi (King Desk) marquetry in the Palace of Versailles.
Merci - Thanks - Gratias !
TCY 23:30, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Magistri emendate si vobis palaceatis. )

brevi complector singula cani — pastorum carmina ludo

I am briefly embraced by a dog/jackal/old age. - I sing the song of the pastor.

nisi grandia canto — irindens(=>irridens) cuspide figo

Not unless I sing greatly/the great - Mocking, I pierce the spear. --Jondel 04:16, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These seem to be disjointed sentences, not part of a continuous context.
Brevi complector singula cantu. = I embrace unique things in a short song.
Pastorum carmina ludo. = I play shepherds' songs.
Non nisi grandia canto. = I sing [of] nothing but great things.
Irridens cuspide figo. = Jeering, I transfix [something] with a spear.
What's the purpose of this exercise? (Btw, Brevi complector singula cani = 'I embrace unique things for a short dog'!) IacobusAmor 05:06, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your translations really are definitely very good and teach me alot like non nisi -nothing of. Those are inscriptions, requested for translations. Click on the links on top.--Jondel 05:16, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are interested in, the main source (not the origin!) of these four short sentences is Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, p. 408.--Utilo 10:01, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting these phrases into Google is also very useful. They are all mottoes that apply to literary genres, and maybe to Muses and to classic authors. "Non nisi grandia canto" has been attached to Clio the Muse of history (I'm not sure yet if it's a quotation from a classical text). "Pastorum carmina ludo" is based on "... carmina qui lusi pastorum ..." Virgil, Georgics 4, 565: it's the pastoral genre. If I've got it right, Virgil is saying the words about himself, as the author of the Eclogues. "Brevi complector singula cantu" is the genre of lyric. "Irridens cuspide figo" is the genre of epigram: it has been said of Martial. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all ! TCY 11:08, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semantics[fontem recensere]

Allow me to say that it is important to translate by meaning that is really understood not by the dictionary meaning. For instance if I were to translate "I have a dream". I would translate the equivalent of " I have strong aspiration or desire" if I used dream, the response might be 'Is the guy asleep ? ' or sleep talking. Of course most of will get the meaninq anyway if I used sleep dream but the purpose of language is to communicate meaning that is understood. I encounter discrepancies in dictionary meanings and actual usage, specially as a Japanese translator at work. ---Jondel 04:16, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you ever see the journal The Linguist? It's read by translators in Britain. I wrote a note in that journal about the English phrase "to sleep late". Usually, where English is spoken, this phrase means "to sleep longer than usual, to wake up late". In the English of Hong Kong, however (I'm told) the phrase means "to go to sleep late". This is said to be because the ordinary Chinese verb corresponding to the ordinary English verb "to sleep" doesn't so much refer to the whole period of sleep, it refers to the moment of going to sleep. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very interesting. I didn't plan to get into languages. I went through lot of similar trouble, like 'quiet a few' which we know means 'a lot' (not FEW! which those Japanese thought it was). I was working as a translator for a Japanese newspaper company. I can recognize some Chinese through Japanese. ---Jondel 15:30, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)-Reply[reply]
I don't have access to The Linguist since I live in the other side of the globe. I have to go and "sleep late' now. --Jondel 15:35, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, Jondel: It is important to translate by meaning! In the case of dream / somnium, however, I suppose Cicero would get the meaning (out of context) when reading "Mihi est somnium" etc. Like English "dream" the Latin word "somnium" is also used in figurative meaning, both negative (phantasm; maybe more often?) and positive (cf. "Somnium Scipionis", where somnium gets the connotations of vision, hope etc.). To me "I have strong aspiration or desire" looks more like a comment or a paraphrase (which of course is o.k., too) than a translation, especially in this case, because "dream" here is opposed to "American dream", so the word should appear, if possible.--Utilo 15:40, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't be insisting of course that we translate to 'strong desire/aspiration' but it is good to keep this in mind. --Jondel 11:36, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

On the necessity of a more coherent orthography: i/j, u/v, æ, œ, apices etc.[fontem recensere]

Dear friends of Vicipædia Latina, I would like to propose to you the following short reading about latin orthography. According to the author of this piece, latin got infected by a diseas that I unfortunately know very well, since the very same disease infects my mother tongue: Italian. It goes without saying that my countrymen are the authors of this unfortunate situation. But you will read about this in the article.

[NB. I have deleted a very long quotation from the article linked below -- it would be a copyright violation, Wikimedia can't do that -- anyone can click on the link and read it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

Vicipædia could be seen as a missed opportunity, having this project rejected the long established tradition of a coherent and sound orthography to the advantage of this italian nonsense which perverts the latin language.

Oops, forgot to link the article.

Thanks for this anonymous exhortation! It's nice to hear of Avitus again. I would say in response, if I may, that your mistake is to focus on the trivial. In this case the medium -- by that I mean the small details of Latin orthography -- is not the message.
In this broader view, Vicipaedia is an opportunity gained -- and it is thriving. Come and join it. Vicipaedia is an opportunity for all serious Latinists, because if we are serious about Latin, we are certainly able to read texts with various orthographic conventions. We do it all the time. We are very lucky that the differences are in fact so trivial. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome back, Avite; your skills have been missed! You've raised some good points, and I don't think it's a mistake to study the details of orthography. ¶ However, I suspect that solutions to the highlighted problems will eventually come from technology. Already we have the ability to use a gadget to convert ae and oe to their ligated forms—so if we want to see them on our individual screens, we can, right now. Some day (I have no doubt), dictionaries or conversion-programs coded in multiple orthographic styles will be floating in the background, permitting other gadgets to enable users to see texts in various combinations of i/j and u/v and all-caps-with-interpuncts and so on. Then, the style in which the texts of Vicipaedia are encoded won't matter at all. For human eyes, though, over the next few years, it's probably best to continue consistently with the style already in place. ¶ One of course has thoughts on each of the orthographic points raised by Avitus, but today is too short to for their indulgence. ;) IacobusAmor 14:28, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we were to automatically convert i/j/u/v, the distinction would have to be present in the source and we would have to start using j. As for ligatures, I don't see a case for them but if people prefer to see them again a translation program is just fine. Honestly the best argument for using j (also v) is that many languages using the Latin alphabet absolutely require the distinction, and it's silly to do so for English, French, etc. but not for Latin given that it's been used in Latin for at least as long. Pantocrator 02:54, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting point. It is perfectly true that by phonological logic, if we choose to use v semivowel, we should also use j semivowel. The best reason for not doing it (and I think this was the reason, though I wasn't around when they decided) is that the great majority of modern printed Latin doesn't do it. Assuming that was the reason, I strongly agree with it because, in such details, reference sources should not be innovators or go against the current trend. To attract the most possible users, they should go with what those users find normal and comfortable. That way, they are best placed to educate all those users about some of the things that really matter (in our case, the substance of what we write in our articles).
But I also think that we can spend our time better than heartsearching on this. Iacobus is quite right: although no gadget does it now, a gadget will surely be designed to convert between these orthographies. Once we have it, we could make everybody happy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The previously meaningless, slight difference in shape between a shorter or a more elongated I (i/j) or a more or less pointed V (v/u), all of which existed already in classical times as mere graphic variants" ? For someone who already knows of the apex, that's an interesting gap; we know I longa was functional. (I'm still trying to come to a conclusion on J myself for my own orthographic guide, though so far the evidence is on the side of allowing it, at least in some contexts. Those who want to see what I've collected so far, [7]; password iota till it's published.)
His statements against the ecclesiastical I/U/V system are very intriguingly written; he has taken all the facts — the system represents the widespread Italian/ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin, where the classical semivowel J is still a semivowel /i̯/ or /j/, but the classical semivowel V has become a fricative consonant /v/, and some classicists who didn't use /v/ phonemicized the script further to an I/U system — and has injected his opinion into it in such a way that these facts (which on their own are perfectly reasonable) are presented as errors; but he only asserts them so, and doesn't prove his case. —Mucius Tever 15:12, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Codex utilis estne?[fontem recensere]

Codex antiquus, ca. 1540
Exemplum ex libro

Salve! Inveni apud avorum meum codex antiquus versimilis ab Ioannes Ludovicus Vives. Nam agitur dictionarium Theodisce-Latine/Latine-Theodisce ca. anno 1540 conceptum. Imagines monstrant liber ipse, incipium a Vives et exemplum partis libri NOMINA REGIONUM (exactius: GENTH (Gandavum) - METZ (Mettis)). Codex non solum translationem verborum singulorum, sed etiam nonnullas partes nominum regionum, instrumentorum, plantarum, partius domus, morborum etc. pp. continet.

Ecce quaestio: Estne utilis propagare imagines e libro partes nominum continentes in Vicipedia (sive Victionario/Communia)? Fortasse pro usoribus Theodisce aptis prodest. Photographia no est professio mea et codex fragilis est, tamen possum parare imagines si optatas sint…El Suizo 09:18, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per se scilicet utilissimum. Sed fortasse primum examinandum est utrum hic codex iam nescioquo in interrete extet. Propono vicipaediae paginam una cum nonnullarum exemplo paginarum sicut iam est a dextra parte factum. --Alex1011 08:33, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, consider scanning this valuable book with a DIY Book Scanner and uploading to the Internet Archive or to Distributed Proofreaders! --Robert.Baruch 21:50, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formulae desideratae (et vide supra)[fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia lacks some possibly increasing numbers of formulae now being used elsewhere. Could a kind Vicipaedian programmer please create "Formula:Infobox person" (as used in en:), not to mention the formulae requested above? IacobusAmor 14:03, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iam habemus Formula:data hominis --Alex1011 21:23, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that formula lacks lines for "years active," "occupation," and "religion." Another missing formula is Formula:aut, for authors in bibliographies. In ignoring functional innovations, Vicipaedia is becoming antiquer & antiquer. IacobusAmor 11:30, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have "programmers" really. What happens is that Vicipaedia editors create or import the formulae that they need. It might be seen from hindsight as a big fault of the interwiki environment that the adapting of formulae from any one wikipedia to any other can be a long and tiresome task, and the more complex the formula the more time-consuming it is.
If you want a formula only once, you won't find that it's worth spending that much time on it (and it wouldn't be fair to ask others to do it for you) -- much better write some text instead. On the other hand, if you want it lots of times, it will probably repay the time you or others spend on it. But better make sure it's fit for purpose before you start :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just had a look at en:Template:Aut. It redirects to en:Template:Smallcaps. The latter requires more than twenty other en: templates to work correctly, some of which might require adaptation in order to work over here; all this in order to "display the lowercase part of your text as typographical small caps".
Incidentally, there's no magic about finding this information. You could do this too. If "Template:Aut" is wanted in a page you're translating, you can go back to en:wiki, find "Template:Aut", read the documentation which says what it will do for you, then click on "Edit" or "View source", and scroll to the bottom of your page to see a list of other templates that are required to make this one work. Then consider whether you want to spend the time on it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An edit-conflict has just abolished the comment I'd written to place here, but time to reconstitute it is lacking. IacobusAmor 13:06, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Another missing formula is for "infobox film," which, in an inevitable effort to narrow ("dumb down"?) the scope of Vicipaedia, our Swiss montagnard has just deleted from My Fair Lady. IacobusAmor 13:06, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a criticism that's astoundingly inapposite: Helveticus widens the scope of Vicipaedia every day! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's what noster Pantocrator did too: delete formulas that didn't work, thus narrowing the scope and thinning out the graphic design of the encyclopedia. Of course H. expands Vicipaedia every day with all those new ministubs he adds; nobody would ever deny that! IacobusAmor 13:41, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know till now, but that was among the things Pantocrator did right! Part of the vicification of a new article, if it's translated and includes templates from another wikipedia, is to ensure that the templates either
  1. already work, or
  2. can be made to work by copying and adapting the template, or
  3. are replaced by text. The choice between 2 and 3, as I said above, depends on editors' judgment: "how will the time be best spent"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such deletion can set progress back. Time is often best spent by importing material and leaving its imperfections to be fixed. In various ways, that's what almost everybody who has ever contributed to Vicipaedia has done. Everything is a work in progress. The answer to a need for further vicification isn't usually obliteration of data that would lighten later helpers' efforts. (Further arguments suppressed because time for the day has expired.) IacobusAmor 14:11, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time for thought, then. No harm in that :) You'll notice when you re-read that I don't suggest obliterating data. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left-hand translation[fontem recensere]

Care, usor sine nomine, decem in commentario de coffeo mutationes nunc ipsum fecisti, quarum novem nomen adiectivum vel nomen substantivum casu genetivo a dextra ad sinistram eius nominis substantivi movent. Cur sic scripsisti? IacobusAmor 17:33, 8 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paene omnis commentarius = locus adlatus?[fontem recensere]

Plurima ut videtur commentarii Thomas Erastus verba sunt locus adlatus, florido putidoque saeculi obsoleti modo excogitatus. Quis retexet hanc telam? IacobusAmor 11:50, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ita: ex hac pagina venit. Haec ad paginam disputationis addo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Populus[fontem recensere]

How now how to say Serbian (for female and male) in Latin?

Thank you! (PS. Can you add the whole word, I mean, the extension for genitiv case) Ivan.milicic3510 19:24, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serbus, -i (m.); Serba, -ae (f.). Also see Serbi. --Robert.Baruch 21:45, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declinatio verbi "Chaos"[fontem recensere]

How to declinate the noun "chaos"? I found this in my dictionary: chaos, n. (acc. chaos, abl. chao) Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 19:27, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassell's says it's nom. & acc. Chaos and abl. Chao, and no other cases have been found. IacobusAmor 21:13, 9 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Genetive & dative Chaï is attested in grammarians. Neander 08:58, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, nomen quod est 'chaos' Latine vix aliter declinatur ac 'pelagi' et 'ceti' nomina, de quibus vide hic. --Fabullus 15:46, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I imagine there's no plural in any language (chaoses?). Pantocrator 02:55, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. One's enough :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SSSS[fontem recensere]

On the page Serbi I found, I think, two mistakes: Samo Sloga Srbina Spašava
Samo is an adverb. So, the translation sola isn't ok (sola is adjective, and it means alone, or something like this). It should be solum (only). Srbina is accusative (accusativus generis masculini) so, the translation should be Serbum (Usor Robert.Baruch scripsit: "Serbus, -i (m.);") Am I right?

Ivan.milicic3510 17:11, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, there should be "Serbum" (solum / sola makes no difference in meaning, though, of course, you are right concerning grammar)--Utilo 18:08, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. SOLA means alone, so the translation of this is "alone concord serb saves". It doesn't have any sense. It must be SOLUM ("only concord serb saves").Ivan.milicic3510 19:22, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Utilo is right, there is no difference in meaning. Translated into English (if I understand correctly), "Concord alone saves the Serb" or "Only Concord saves the Serb". Both make sense.
There is a good reason for preferring the form "sola" in Latin: "solum" would be ambiguous. Is it an adjective "Concord saves the only Serb" or is it an adverb "Only Concord saves the Serb"? Since word order is free in Latin, you can't tell. So it is better to use "sola", which is not ambiguous and makes perfect sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:31, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sola concordia serbum servat = only concord saves the serb; solum concordia serbum servat = ambiguous depending on whether solum is taken in adverbial sense modifying verb or modifying serbum: i.e. either concord saves the only serb or only concord saves the serb. -- 18:51, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thank you. I just want to say this: in my language, croatian, this is also neuter, like in latin, and this also can be ambiguous (samo sloga - here's samo adverb, it's neuter, and sloga is feminine, and they aren't in the same gender, so it must be adverb, but if I write samo djete, it's ambiguous, because dijete is neuter, and samo is also neuter, so it can be adverb or adjective (translation: only child; alone child (eg Home alone)). Obviously croatian has some similarity with latin!Ivan.milicic3510 21:13, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks -- it was a very interesting point to raise. It's nice, too, that the same slogan can be abbreviated SSSS in both languages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:18, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator[fontem recensere]

Who's administrator on vikilibri? 13:12, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we know: everything seems ominously quiet over there. I can trace only one magistratus at vicilibri, called "The Doc", whose last contribution was in 2007. Perhaps someone else can help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently, the only admin there is "The Doc". A while ago, User:Alex1011 and I (User:UV) temporarily held admin rights there as well. If there is need (e. g. if "The Doc" does not respond to requests), I would be ready to run for admin there again, and possibly User:Alex1011 as well. Greetings, --UV 22:34, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made new wikibook, ("Glossarium Croatice"). So, can somebody add it? Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 11:34, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice there are already several glossaria on Vicilibri. They all have this form of title. As I said above, I don't think this is good Latin. In classical grammar an adverb modifies a verb or an adjective but not a noun. If a two-word title is wanted (and why not) it should be "Glossarium Croaticum", and the others should be changed to match. Would anyone else agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you! I only wrote this title (croatice) because other books have title like this. Ivan.milicic3510 12:22, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, too.--Utilo 11:43, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lingua Croatica et Serbica[fontem recensere]

These two languages are similar. But there isn't "lingua serbocroatica". These languages aren't the same. They're only similar. There is difference between them. So can somebody write "lingua Croatica et Serbica" or "lingua Croaticaque Serbica", or something else? Thanks!

Ivan.milicic3510 13:25, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe someone with a deeper knowledge on languages may be able to help here. But I'd argue that the language, just as the people, should not be "serbicus" but "serbius" or "serbus" (thus lingua Serbia). Likewise for Croatian (lingua Croata)--Xaverius 20:27, 11 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forsitan, sed quid de Gallus / Lingua Gallica (et postea: Francogallica); Germanus / Sermo Germanicus (Sueton); Lingua Russica, Anglica, Arabica, Hispanica etc.?--Utilo 14:53, 13 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, Ivan.milicic is right: Today's perspective (in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro) doesn't any longer allow to speak of a serbocroation language. Serbocroation was a standard based on one dialect and created in the 19th century to unify Croatian and Serbian dialects/languages. It served as official language till 1991. Croatian and Serbian were looked upon as dialects of one single language ("Western" and "Eastern"). Nowadays Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and even Montenegrin are treated as distinct languages (which, of course, is more a political than a linguistic issue). When speaking about these languages in common sometimes the shortcut BCS (for Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian) is used (in order to avoid the term serbocroatian). Some German linguists have introduced the term "Mittelsüdslawisch" (Middle-South-Slavic). In reality standard Croatian and standard Serbian (based on one dialect, Štokavian, as mentioned above) are nearer than some dialects of Croatian itself.--Utilo 10:01, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I'm right. Croatian is my language, and between serbian and croatian is difference between some words, and accent. Their accent is very different from our. (eg. in croatian, child is djete, and in serbian dete, and they're also using some different sentences, sentences with da, eg. croatian: "Volim ići u školu." means "I like to go to school", and in serbian: "Volim da idem u školu."; they always use "da"; and they're sometimes using different letters, Cyrillic, eg. "Волим да идем у школу." - "Volim da idem u školu."). Ivan.milicic3510
I didn't want to instruct you, Ivan, I rather wrote for those who might have less knowledge of these languages and their relationship among each other.--Utilo 11:40, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Max Weinreich's aphorism—אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט 'a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot', 'a language is a dialect with an army and a navy'—seems to be in play here. Minor differences in phonology (like djete vs. dete, or American English /hɨr/ vs. New Zealand English /hiː/ = 'here'), and minor differences in vocabulary (like this da vs. ići, or British English boot vs. American English trunk), and minor differences in spelling (like Roman vs. Cyrillic letters, or British newspaper English realise vs. American English and Oxford English realize) don't usually distinguish languages. It might be useful to note how Wikipedia's article starts (emphasis added): "Croatian . . . is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats. . . . They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin." Probably all the major points at issue have been discussed ad nauseam apud en:Talk:Croatian_language. IacobusAmor 13:44, 13 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliqui administrator sententia mea deleat paginas redirectionis Lingua Croatica, Lingua Serbica et Lingua Bosnica, ut his nominibus commentationes singulares scribi possint.--Utilo 11:48, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melius sit, sine deletione, paginas redirectionum in paginas substantivas convertere. Si id facere vis, ita faciendumst: 1. imprime e.g. Lingua Croatica; 2. ad paginam Lingua Serbocroatica volens nolens adductus, imprime in litteras parvulas "Lingua Croatica" sub titulo visas; 3. imprime "Recensere"; 4. paginam tuam scribe! OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Martii 2011 (UTC)