Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 17

E Vicipaedia

praepositiones[fontem recensere]

Can this be correct: "cum quod Lucio". Cum is with Lucius. Is this correct? Ivan.milicic3510 09:04, 1 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems correct to me, as Lucius is there in the ablative. "cum quod Lucio" may mean "which with Lucius (...)", but there are more expert latinists around here...--Xaverius 13:50, 2 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Ivan.milicic3510 19:10, 5 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabularium[fontem recensere]

Movi actas tabernarias ad tabularium, sed si male feci, aut si nimis res movi, revertamus--Xaverius 14:02, 2 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Est (iterum atque iterum)[fontem recensere]

Ecce: "Latina (-ae, f.) (olim Lictoria (-ae, f.)) (Italiane: Latina vel Littoria) Urbs Italiae et municipium circiter 112 000 incolarum, caput Provinciae Latinensis, in regione Latio et in media Italia—ta-daa!—est." Auribus nostris, hoc est necessarie hic significat Anglice 'exists', non 'is'. Ergo verbum addidimus ridiculum: ta-daa! Quid audiunt alii? IacobusAmor 13:30, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hahahae! --Robert.Baruch 17:33, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fraction[fontem recensere]

What's correct: [10] or [11]? Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 16:23, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are both right. Both the book and the wiki article use the same words for fractions. The book appears to use hand-written symbols that do not have a citation, but I don't think the author just made them up. I think the wiki article is perhaps in need of a citation as well. Also, it would be nice to use hand-written drawings of the symbols. The wiki article seems to suffer from ASCII art, and eventually it is forced to use circumlocutions such as "1/1728 siliqua, siliquae, represented by a symbol resembling closing guillemets »". Searching in Google Books for earlier citations and for examples of fraction symbols is a good idea. --Robert.Baruch 17:42, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it appears that the table in the wikipedia article only talks about fraction symbols (from 1/12 to 12/12) used on coins. So if you want ancient Roman fractions, stick with the twelfth fractions. The other fractions may be later (i.e. Medieval). --Robert.Baruch 17:56, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a good discussion about Roman fractions and their symbols in "Introduction to the study of Latin inscriptions" (1896) by James Chidester Egbert, page 76. (Google Books). --Robert.Baruch 18:17, 6 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! Gratias tibi ago! Ivan.milicic3510 15:15, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

profectus[fontem recensere]

In historiis Romanorum habetur, quod cum imperator Augustus Roma profectus in partes Illyricas exercitus duceret... What is profectus? (...because when emperor August from Rome ???? in Illyrian parts led the army...) Is this something like "successful"? (successful emperor August...)???? Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 15:14, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Left", "departed", etc. It comes from proficiscor.--Xaverius 15:40, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sic, 'left, departed, started forward, proceeded', &c.: cum imperator Augustus[,] Romá profectus[,] in partes Illyricas exercitus duceret 'when the emperor Augustus, having set out from Rome, led his armies into Illyrian territory.' IacobusAmor 16:16, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Gratias vobis multas ago! The first part of sentence I also don't understand: In historiis Romanorum habetur. If I translate the verb habetur with verb to have, it doesn't have any sense. So, I think it must be used some other translation, and here's the hole sentence:
In historiis Romanorum habetur, quod cum imperator Augustus Roma profectus in partes Illyricas exercitus duceret et ipse alio properaret, misit quendam ducem, Vinicium nomine, contra Pannonios, qui duobus acribus fluviis circumavallantur, Dravo et Savo. Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 18:48, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Germanic comma is naturally confusing here. Better: Habetur quod, cum = 'It is held/considered/regarded that, when'. IacobusAmor 18:55, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thank you for helping me! Ivan.milicic3510 19:20, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

versa[fontem recensere]

Glandiferam Pannoniam, scripsit Plinius Maior, mitescentia Alpium iuga per medium Illyricum a septentrione ad meridiem versa considunt. First, I thought versa discribes iuga. But it is almost at the end of sentence. Can somebody help me? Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 12:09, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text at Lacus Curtius runs as follows: Inde glandifera Pannonia, qua mitescentia Alpium iuga per medium Illyricum a septentrione ad meridiem versa molli in dextra ac laeva devexitate considunt. - "mitescentia Alpium iuga" is subject, "versa" is Participium coniunctum. - Translation on Perseus: Next to them comes acorn-bearing Pannonia, along which the chain of the Alps, gradually lessening as it runs through the middle of Illyricum from north to south, forms a gentle slope on the right hand and the left. - The translation is rather free: "qua" = where!--Utilo 23:16, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another defective formula[fontem recensere]

Formula:panorama. Vide commentarium de Hongkongo. Ubi sunt nostri programmarii (programmatores)? IacobusAmor 14:06, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is no "Formula:panorama"! Ivan.milicic3510 19:31, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now it works, but this is in english
|image      = File:Hong Kong Skyline Panorama -_Dec_2008.jpg
|fullwidth  = 1920
|fullheight = 354
|caption    = [[Panorama|Panoramicus]] [[Honcongum (insula)|Honcongi Insulae]] [[aedificium|aedificiorum]] (''skyline'') [[nox|nocte]] despectus.
|alt        = Night time city skyline with Victoria Harbour in front and low hills behind
|height     = 192

Just translate these english words to latin and I'm going to put latin words in program! Ivan.milicic3510 19:50, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's printing OK in the article now. Thanks! Next up: "Infobox mountain," as in Temoria. IacobusAmor 02:43, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look now. I think it works! Ivan.milicic3510 11:27, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glossarium linguae Latinae[fontem recensere]

Is there any dictionary that explains latin words? Ivan.milicic3510 11:17, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunt multi! IacobusAmor 16:51, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this one. It understands conjugation and declension, so you can pretty much copy-paste any Latin word into it and it'll give you possibilities of what the undeclined word is, as well as English translations. Mattie 21:09, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Victionarium (in progressu), glossa --Alex1011 00:20, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I didn't know there are some other forms of some verb (eg. amasso, amasse).
I mean, the dictionary that explains using of some word, eg. fluvius means rever, and amnis and flumen too, but in latin they aren't the same. So, do you know some page (or at google books) that contains latin words with explanaiton of using, etc? Ivan.milicic3510 19:07, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alia formula mendosa[fontem recensere]

Nobis nunc est alia formula mendosa: "Formula:Ethnic group." Vide commentarium Baka (Cameronia et Gabonia). Sunt in orbe terrarum multa centena (vel fortasse milia!) talium gregum. IacobusAmor 16:51, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Ivan.milicic3510 17:32, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliae[fontem recensere]

Etiam "Formula:Infobox flag," "Formula:FOTW," et "Formula:Vexillum-stipula." Vide Vexillum Insulae Christi Natalis (Australia). Necesse est nobis multa centena (vel fortasse milia!) commentariorum de vexillis habere. ¶ Etiam "Formula Infobox judge." Vide Ioannes McCarthy Roll. IacobusAmor 17:31, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Vexillum-stipula: on english wikipedia [12] is this page. But there is
{{Australian flags}}
. I don't know what means "vexillum stipula" (flag ???). Ivan.milicic3510 17:46, 10 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alia[fontem recensere]

Est formula mendosa, "Islam-stipula," in commentario de Haizo, equo Gabrielis. IacobusAmor 13:14, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non iam est. --UV 19:03, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the necessity of a more coherent orthography: i/j, u/v, æ, œ, apices etc. (2)[fontem recensere]

I am creating a new thread about this topic —hence the (2)— considering that the old one is «gone» [Scripsit usor sine nomine]

It got moved to the archives, and can probably still be found. IacobusAmor 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and it inspired an interesting exchange of opinions. Before I forget: IacobusAmor, you greeted me with the words «welcome back, Avite», but I am not Avitus. /// [Scripsit usor sine nomine]

Oh well, greetings to both of you then! IacobusAmor 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am only starting to learn latin (from Latin via Ovid, great book!) and, reading here and there around the net, I learned that the latin language is affected by the very same «disease» that affects italian (which is my mother tongue, along with Japanese). /// As I slowly advanced in the study, I started feeling a familiar sense of uneasiness, only to discover, through Avitus’ writings [ ], that this uneasiness had italian roots: latin was overpowered by the italian orthographic reform. /// I’ll tell you how it works in my language: nobody cares about coherence, precision, clarity, everything is degraded to its lowest common denominator. For instance, Italian distinguishes open and closed vowels, and, when necessary, they are written ‘è’ (open) and ‘é’ (closed), and so ‘ò’ and ‘ó’. But for some obscure reason, it is common practice to mark accented ‘i’ like ‘ì’ instead of ‘í’, even if ‘i’ is always closed; the same with ‘ù’/‘ú’. Many authorities of the language oppose this nonsense (much like Avitus...), but their voices are ignored and even ridiculed, since the «mainstream» herd couldn’t care less. This is just one small example. /// It is indeed very discouraging to learn that latin orthography is in such a bad shape after all the centuries of tradition —much like italian— and that the worst choices and absurdities were elevated to the status of commonly accepted rule —again, like italian—. Vien da chiedersi se siamo solo capaci di rovinare tutto quello ereditiamo dai nostri avi, noi italiani. Che vergogna. /// Valé and sorry for the bad english. - [Anon]

You speak reasonably (and your English is much better than your modesty allows you to claim), and so I'm sure you'll understand my reason for this comment: people who tell us that what we are doing is by some logic wrong, and don't make any positive contribution themselves, are not likely to persuade us. That was Avitus's problem when he called in here: he talked enthusiastically and tirelessly, he obviously wrote Latin extremely well and it's a great pity that he wrote nothing here that is useful, but, sadly, that's how it is. He wasted some of his time and he went away. You could do the same: go on running one or several threads about orthography, philology, life, the universe and everything, which will never be really any use to anyone (not even to you), and never write any articles. Or you could do something useful. You could join us, write some articles, and begin to see how it works. From the inside, you might even be able to make it work better. Standing there on the outside, you surely won't.
You've contributed to the English Wikipedia (and so far as I know you haven't made any complaints about English orthography, wildly illogical though it is). Be fair to us, then. Contribute here too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 12 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Andrew, thank you for the kind reply. I wish I could contribute; as I said, I’m only beginning to study latin. :) /// As I see it, «tradition» is one essential component of orthography that cannot be thrown into the dustbin light heartedly. English orthography, as chaotic as it may appear, has an intrinsic consistency that is the direct inheritance of its history and tradition. And whenever a change is made in orthographic rules of any language, even in modern times, one never goes in a direction which is opposite to common sense, coherence and major clarity (i.e. German recently; Italian and, apparently, Latin being exceptions). /// In the case of Latin, I can’t really understand how this could happen. Avitus says it’s my nation’s fault, and I have to believe him. It must have been the moment of “inertia”, to which it’s easy to surrender in our epoch where everything is defined by “mass” culture. Vicipaedia could take (can take?) a proud stance against laxity and in favour of tradition.

The history you give is one-sided and inaccurate. But I will leave you to discover that as you read more about the subject: there's lots of time. Meanwhile let me give you, extremely briefly, the four reasons why I am certain that the suggestion that Vicipaedia should adopt the Alcuin orthography now is misconceived. NB: I claim, for what it's worth, to be an expert in the field of encyclopedias. I have researched and published on these very issues (concerning different encyclopedias, not Wikimedia ones); I have compiled specialised encyclopedias myself for publication and have faced these issues before.
  1. For any encyclopedia, the important task is to gather the information and to present it so that it can be easily used. All other issues are secondary; but attention to style and appearance is necessary because unwise choices can deter readers.
  2. Well-planned encyclopedias do not take proud stances on secondary issues. They follow a consensus. That's how they get to be useful, and to be used by the largest number of people.
  3. We on Vicipaedia need those people, even more than most other encyclopedias do. If we adopt an orthography that only a minority of Latinists actively write, and one that is difficult to write with normal keyboards, we will lose contributors and readers.
  4. If the consensus should change around us, so that most potential contributors and users are familiar with that orthography, why -- then we can change! And it's the same with most other aspects of style and appearance. Printed encyclopedias are stuck, but online encyclopedias are really good at adapting!
So, however right you may be in your own mind or in the abstract, you haven't considered your audience and its priorities. Avitus made the same mistake. You might persuade almost any other community and almost any other website to follow your ideas. If you persuade enough of them, you will have changed the consensus, and it's likely that Vicipaedia would go with the consensus. It's very flattering to us that you and Avitus have both thought it worth your time to try to persuade us first: it demonstrates how important Vicipaedia may one day be. But your strategy is mistaken. This is not the place to start: this will be the place to finish, when you have changed the consensus elsewhere.
That's it from me. Farewell, and come back as soon as you want to write some Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:57, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The anon's arguments as well as Avitus' about spelling reform are not convincing, for several reasons: (1) the orthography I see here is the pretty much the same as I see in the Clementine vulgate bible which predates the formation of italian state and certain italian spelling reforms. (2) certain alternative recent orthographies are criticized as *throwback orthographies* ignoring centuries of latin orthographic innovation (i.e. that one developed and used by renaissance humanists) but this reason is juxtaposed with the contradictory claim that using apices ' to mark long vowels is better because the *Ancient Romans* used this method (instead of ^ and ` which used by modern renaissance humanists). (3) the proposed rationale of distinguishing the use of u/i for vowel and v/j for consonant does not have a clear advantage since the u still has consonantal value in words such as quis and fuit and i has consonantal value after the l in filii and after h in hiems. All that this method has to recommend it is that the Vatican latinists pronounce the v as distinct from u consonant, but this fact is ignored by Avitus in his arguments. (4) No advantage of using ligatures is ever given except that he likes them and they've been used before. (5) No reasons for abandoning other modern spelling innovations is given (like using Quum for temporal cum, etc..) although the logic of his criticism of recent spelling simplifications requires that such medieval orthographic innovations be kept. In sum, Avitus argues for a new orthographic system, based on ancient and modern latin orthographies and what he personally thinks is in good taste and in keeping with his personal estimate of how latin should be spoken; however he is unable to logically demonstrate that other systems are inferior to his own without equivocation. -- 13:07, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, I’m pretty sure Auitus specifically did give the advantage of using ligatures appropriately—he showed some examples of words where oë or aë are pronounced separately and words where oe and ae represent diphthongs.
Also, I am genuinely curious, ’cause it seems like there must be a more compelling reason than just “these textbooks do it that way,” but I don’t think I’ve quite seen it articulated—can someone please explain why V but not J? — 09:21, 10 Augusti 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two varieties of latin spoken today: in the church u and v are pronounced differently, in the academic they pronounced the same; in both church and academic, j and i- consonant would be pronounced the same except in words from other languages: even in older texts such as the bible when both i-consonant and j are used side by side the i appearing before another vowel is a consonant, but j does not appear between a consonant and a vowel unless it starts a new word, as already discussed above. So j in both types of latin pronunciation is at best an alternative version of i-consonant that appears between two vowels or at the beginning of a word, or is used for other sounds from foreign languages such as english. Besides ligatures, are a number of other medieval spelling conventions that were once used for space economy but are disused today, such as a tilde over a vowel to indicate a following m. In europe, ligatured ae and oe where once also pronounced the same as e, rather than as diphthongs, but that style of pronunciation died in the 19th century.-- 03:30, 13 Augusti 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don’t be offended if I tell you this, but your style reminds me of that of Squealer from Animal Farm: you write well and abundantly, but the aftertaste, after having read it all, is flavourless. I found myself uttering the words «Napoleon is always right!» after reading your message. /// i) You speak about consensus, and this is reasonable, but you forget to point to me where and how consensus was reached. ii) You write «attention to style and appearance is necessary because unwise choices can deter readers»; two lines below you write «If the consensus should change around us, so that most potential contributors and users are familiar with that orthography, why -- then we can change! [I hope not like Obama did]». So— was it for the readers or the contributors? You may be an expert in your field, but you can’t contradict yourself so grossly and pretend to be considered as such. iii) You used the word «mistake» to apostrophize my opinions three times, which means that you must be right and discussing is pointless. iv) I was missing the infinite diatribe between Napoleon&company and Avitus back in 2007; I went through the whole thread yesterday and it killed all the interest and sympathy I had for Vicipaedia. Bye and thank you for your time. — anonimo.

In case it wasn't clear, in referring to a consensus above I meant the consensus of modern writers and editors of Latin, in print and on the Web.
I don't really understand the Obama reference -- can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he is attempting to interject as humor the fact that Obama has become famous for going back on certain of his major election promises, such as on not intervening in other countries' civil wars. But the comment here is a non sequitur.-- 22:12, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obama seems to be governing from a position closer to the center than he promised when he campaigned for office (for example, in regard to the alleged war crimes of the previous administration, the closing of the prison at Guantánamo, certain tax matters, etc.), and the perception of this pattern irritates many on the left. Also, it hasn't passed unnoticed that, though he famously announced—as recently as last month!—that U.S. forces would be participating in operations in Libya for only "days, not weeks," weeks have passed, and U.S. planes are apparently still attacking targets there. At least he's not so obvious or insulting as the Republican politician who recently, after having made a factually false statement on the floor of the Senate (he damned his opponents as being responsible for "more than 90 percent" of certain activities he & his supporters dislike, when the truth is "about 3 percent"), explained that his statement "was not intended to be a factual statement." IacobusAmor 11:36, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it wasn’t understood, “CHANGE” was sort of the oft-repeated tagline of his campaign. — 09:21, 10 Augusti 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iterum intervenit Guadalajara![fontem recensere]

Usor, noster amicus Mexicanus, nunc scribit: "Muscidae est familia insectum Muscoidearum subfamiliae Dipterum ordinis." Sed ecce: (1) nomen Muscidae est plurale femininum (ergo eae res recte sunt, non est); (2) nomen Muscoidea est plurale neutrius generis (ergo suffixus genetivus pluralis recte est -orum, non -arum); et (3) nomen Diptera est plurale neutrius generis (ergo suffixus genetivus pluralis recte est -orum, non -um). Guadalajara seems to have been studying Latin for more than three years, yet almost every page it creates—each usually offering a text consisting of nothing more than a simplified definition, expressed in fewer than ten words—lowers the quality of Vicipaedia. Three elementary grammatical faults in eight words, as shown in the sentence cited above, is an unexpected proportion for prose conceived by an author in at least the fourth year of study, as is the absence of extended definitions and explanatory sentences having syntactical structures more complicated than that of A est B. Is there any way for magistrates to investigate this source and inform it of the infelicities in which it persists? If not, perhaps it could be roused to take action itself and query a magistrate if its IP addresses were blocked. IacobusAmor 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly don't believe that what you're suggesting is practical or politically possible. On the one occasion I believe such a thing was tried (shutting off the IP addresses for a whole neighbourhood) it was a matter that interested Jimmy Wales personally and it had some repercussions off-Wikipedia. (And I could well be wrong that it ever happened at all.) The issue at stake was on a different level of political importance from the appearance of a certain number of illiterate new pages. In any case it's not a thing that anyone here on Vicipaedia would be able to do.
So far, if I've counted right, it's involved only four IP addresses—an easily blockable number. IacobusAmor 11:36, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have suggested a solution (mark the pages "Non latine" or "Non stipula" and they will be deleted after seven days). It's likely that the contributor would soon notice that. Why not try it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did try it, and what happened was that some kind soul fixed the grammar but left the style in its previous state, with the article clinging to life as the barest of stipulas. Usually when I fix Guadalajara's articles, I try to add value by importing information from other wikis—text beyond the eight-to-ten-word definitions that Guadalajara provides, illustrations, vide-etiams, fontes, etc. Doing so is often a distraction (within the larger case that Vicipaedia itself is a distraction). IacobusAmor 11:36, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. Sorry, I thought we were talking about an indefinite number of possible addresses. Yes, if it's only four, we could block them. Would other magistratus agree that we should do this?
Ah, no, I've just looked back at your thread on the archive. It isn't only four. You listed 47 back there, and clearly the user appeared on a new one nearly every time: he/she might, if I understand correctly, appear on any of several hundred thousand. All that we can do is to block single IP addresses. So the situation is as I said before: unless I'm mistaken, no Vicipaedian can do what you ask. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so I miscounted—by one! Our friend uses five sets of IP addresses: those starting 189.192, those starting 189.196, those starting 200.56, those starting 200.77, and those starting 200.92. Surely the system has boolean ways of doing something to them collectively? IacobusAmor 13:04, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None that I know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh well. :/ IacobusAmor 13:51, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there is a way to block more than one IP address: mw:Help:Range_blocks.
This means, that we could technically block all IPs beginning with 200.77 (range, for example — but I'm not sure if this is really the best option here, since even blocking only this range would already affect 8192 IP addresses. I'd rather support Andrew's solution and delete those articles after a few days. --Aylin 20:43, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Didn't know that. Thanks, Aylin. But, yes, I remain doubtful about the appropriateness of doing this. It's not a vandal we're dealing with. If the pages are marked up, that gives us the chance to use and improve some of the work (why not?) and then to delete what remains unacceptable. I feel that would be more proper. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, it seems to me from Iacobus's list that Maloideae (which appeared today) is one of these pages. Well, it's too short and uninformative of course, but it is a start, and I'll improve it. I praise Iacobus for having dealt with so many others already -- but no one's saying that anybody must do this: if no one wants to work on the page, we still have the option of deleting it as a "Non stipula". Why not give ourselves this option? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Item[fontem recensere]

O, usor sine nomine, vigilas vel dormis? Scripsisti "Calliphoridae est familia insectum Dipterum familiae." Ecce: eae non est, sed sunt ; nomen insectum non est genetivum plurale; nomen Dipterum non est genetivum plurale; atque nomen familiae est supervacaneum et falsum. Sex verba, quattuor menda! Et Latinae plus quam tres annos studes? Si tibi placet, in librum grammaticum inquire! IacobusAmor 13:51, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One wonders in which language our friend is finding the grammar of "they is." Many big wikis correctly accommodate the plurality of the Latin noun: this lemma is plural in English ("Calliphoridae . . . are"), German ("Die Schmeißfliegen (Calliphoridae) sind"), Spanish ("Los califóridos (Calliphoridae) son"), French ("Les Calliphoridae . . . sont "), and Portuguese ("As Calliphoridae constitui"). The structure is different, but grammatically correct, in Italian ("La famiglia Calliphoridae comprende")—a pattern that French ("Maloideae est le nom") and Dutch ("Malaceae is een botanische naam") use elsewhere. IacobusAmor 13:34, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A possible explanation (though one shudders at the thought) is that our friend, after more than three years of familiarity with Latin, doesn't yet recognize the difference between est and sunt. And since that's impossible, surely, an inevitable judgment is that Guadalajara is at bottom intruding for the purpose of making responsible denizens scramble. IacobusAmor 13:56, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever our friend's purpose (and one should be happiest to assume his goodwill), his effect is undeniable: he does invite "responsible denizens" to "scramble"! IacobusAmor 15:14, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An alternative explanation (iterum cogitatum horremus) is that our friend intends to learn nothing more of the language, but is driven by a compulsion of some kind. If Guadalajara can't be blocked, an appropriate response may then be to delete its words as soon as they appear. Leaving them intact but marked "Non stipula" (or whatever) doesn't necessarily address the compulsion. That the subjects of its articles are desirable in an encyclopedia can't be denied, but the same can be said of several million other subjects, on which one could just as easily create similarly ungrammatical & unhelpful "articles." IacobusAmor 14:00, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've followed Andrew's advice and marked four of Guadalajara's articles "non stipula" (though they may not rightly be):
Die 19 Martii 2007 scripsit "Diptera est ordo insectorum cui alae membranaceae sub alis sunt."
Die 27 Martii 2011 scripsit "Staphylinidae est familia coleopterum ordinis."
Die 1 Aprilis 2011 scripsit "Brachycera est subordo Dipterum ordinis."
Die 2 Aprilis 2011 scripsit "Apocrita sunt subordo insectorum inordinatum in ordo Hymenopterum."
Note that several contributors have improved Diptera, so it's probably no longer a "non stipula"; but for more than two years, it bore the definition "Diptera est ordo insectorum cui alae membranaceae sub alis sunt." For all that time, it was lowering the quality of Vicipaedia, and its absence would therefore have been preferable to its presence. IacobusAmor 15:10, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Please keep on doing that whenever you encounter such a page (unless you yourself choose to spend the time improving it). If the definition of "non stipula" needs adjusting to cover these pages, we could do that, I guess. I know it's infuriating ...
I have for the moment changed the "{{non stipula}}" template to demand a bibliographical citation or external link that supports the title. These pages don't have that. If my change strikes others as a bad idea, please revert it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The requirement for a citation supporting the Latin lemma might make Nuada's articles non-stipulas too. (I've often wondered what the Latin sources of all those Italian names might be!) So it might be too strict a criterion? Maybe if it could be limited only to botanical & zoological articles? IacobusAmor 17:08, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, good point, to keep the discussion in focus I have reverted my change. Please, go on using the "Non stipula" template even if the pages are on the borderline. After all, in the unlikely case that the anon user makes a protest, there would be the beginning of a dialogue :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Item[fontem recensere]

Nuperrime scripsit "Primulaceae est familia plantarum florentium Ericalium oirdinis" et "Polemoniaceae est familia plantarum florentium Ericalium ordinis." Hos commentarios "Non stipula" designavimus, secundum disceptationem supra. IacobusAmor 02:48, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coniunctiones[fontem recensere]

How to translate "at quia" and "aedes"? Here's sentence: At quia in pulchra terra aedes et urbes suas condituri ac reliquas habituri erant, passim monumenta spiritus cultusque sui ac architecturae posteris tradiderunt. Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 08:48, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At quia 'But because' ; aedes et urbes suas 'their buildings and cities'? IacobusAmor 11:01, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 18:16, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Type-species[fontem recensere]

We have about twenty articles that treat the concept of "type-species" as a species typica, a Latin phrasing that might seem obvious in the face of the English; but Stearn's Botanical Latin says otherwise: the 'type-species of a genus' is a typus generis or a generitypus (3rd ed., p. 535). Here are Stearn's other pertinent terms (with his definitions), in case anyone cares:

holotypus, the one specimen or element used by the author of a name or designated by him as nomenclatural type
isotypus, duplicate of the holotype
lectotypus, specimen selected from original material to serve as nomenclatural type when the holotype is missing or not designated
neotypus, specimen selected for working purposes as representative when all of the original material is missing
paratypus, specimen cited with the original description other than the holotype
syntypus, one of the specimens used by the author when no holotype was designated or when two or more were simultaneously designated as type
topotypus, topotype, i.e. specimen from the type-locality agreeing with the type-specimen

Note that in all instances, the word for "type" is the noun typus, not an adjective agreeing with species. IacobusAmor 17:07, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I care. Thanks for the reminder. I have a couple of my pages to correct now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 14 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comitatus in CFA II[fontem recensere]

We have previously agreed that XXX Comitatus (State) shall be the format of the lemma for counties in the United States. I have written a program to do a survey of all the counties (and parishes for Louisiana and regions for Alaska) in the U.S., and here is what I found:

  • There are 3,089 counties/parishes/regions in the U.S.
  • 1,604 of those do not have pages in la:.
  • 708 of the existing pages need to be retitled to conform.
  • 25 will need special handling (all the regions in Alaska, all cities which are also counties, and the five boroughs of New York City, where calling a borough by its county name is just plain weird. I know whereof I speak, having grown up in NYC).

My proposal is that I will write a bot to:

  • retitle the pages that need retitling to conform.
  • add the 1,604 missing pages by using a standard format the same as that of Allegany Comitatus (Terra Mariae).
  • add formulae where necessary for a quick-pick list of counties in a state.
  • add categories where necessary.

The usual caveats apply: these would be stubs, might "unfairly" increase the pagecount, but also serve as useful starting points.

What say ye? --Robert.Baruch 18:43, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means! (But don't finalize the format until experts have had a go at it.) IacobusAmor 21:37, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes (to both the above speakers). Also see what Helveticus says, since he has created a large proportion of those we currently have. But a really excellent idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We previously considered there was no need to add (State) where there is no ambiguity (i.e. only one county has the name).* I think this is the way the German and some other wikis do it. Can your bot allow for that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* This was discussed here, but it's hardly a discussion, more a fiat. I can no longer remember whether discussion elsewhere had preceded this. If you prefer to put in the state name every time, or if that's easier for the bot, I doubt if anyone would object. Anyway, I've asked Helveticus to look in here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I think it can be done. Personally, I prefer the way it's done on en: which seems more regular to me, but I'll stick with the (apparent) consensus and not include a state name unless it would be ambiguous. I may still have to rename some articles because of duplicate county names (Alleghany and Allegany each are two counties). --Robert.Baruch 23:15, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What will be your source for data? I ask because, as with the asteroids, the pages look better when the text is longer, so I'm wondering what bits of data can easily be incorporated in text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to use en: as the source, but if I could find a scrapeable source of data (e.g. I'd use that. Originally I was just going to include the population, date of creation, and county seat. But if you have more suggestions, please try to fit it into the Allegany Comitatus (Terra Mariae) page so that I can see an example, and I'll find a source and generate it. --Robert.Baruch 23:15, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've had a go at trying to make it match the first paragraph in Wikipedia, with the dubious statement softened into a likelier allegation. Note that a U.S. county isn't the same thing as a comitatus (confer en:County and en:County (US)), and a U.S. county seat isn't the same thing as a caput (urbs) (confer en:Capital city and en:County seat). IacobusAmor 11:55, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your proposal. I remember you only that you have to change also the already existing formulas. I believe I had already prepared the formulas for most of the States--Helveticus montanus 14:56, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
besides for Virginia somebody else had before created some pages but he also translated the name of the county in English, e.g: Claudiocestriensis comitatus (Virginia) for Glouchester County. Therefore we have also to settle this point.--Helveticus montanus 07:16, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think translations of that kind are undesirable, because they often perpetuate error: for example, "Claudiocestria" was a very bad guess by a 16th or 17th century antiquarian for the origin of the English name "Gloucester" (whose real origin is "Glevum" Lat. + "ceastre" O.Eng.). But, of course, if someone before us has used that name for the American county, that changes things: our normal rule is to accept existing usage.
I also think this works best if we start out conservative: keep the vernacular name until someone shows us a reliable Latin source. This is what has happened with the small English towns I have been doing: I create the pages using the vernacular name, and then, in some cases, Alex has discovered a Latin name and moved the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you Andrew and I'm doing the same for the French villages. -- 10:04, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait -- keep the vernacular name even if translatable? Then Cumberland, Maryland should be Cumberland (Terra Mariae), not Cumbria (Terra Mariae) even if we have Cumbria. Rectene? --Robert.Baruch 17:06, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of copyvio pages[fontem recensere]

I am beginning to delete the pages that consist almost entirely of biological taxonomy. They have three strikes against them: there is usually no text; where there is text, it isn't real Latin; the taxonomy is always a copyvio from "Systema Naturae 2000". There is often no off-wiki citation of sources. There are 942 of them!

Before I delete any more, anyone who wishes can find them all by doing a search for "Systema taxinomicum animalis" (Taxonomic system of the animal): they all contain this heading. Of course, any of these pages can be rescued by removing the taxonomy, writing a couple of Latin sentences about the dead creatures concerned, and ensuring that there is some reference or external link. They will then become legitimate stipulae. But these pages have been around much too long, and it's time to clean up. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In ancient times, I worked on a few of them. I particularly remember deleting the (redundant) word animalis (or, as I seem to recall, Animalis). It wasn't clear that the pages had a "copyvio" though. Why would a quotation be a copyright violation? Is it merely that there's no acknowledgment of the source? If so, that problem can easily be fixed. IacobusAmor 13:16, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you deleted "Animalis" or altered that heading, my current search won't find the pages you worked on, so they are safe.
We have discussed these pages several times; you've been involved, but neither you nor I nor anyone has been able to offer a solution. They consist wholly of taxonomy (except occasionally for one line of non-Latin at the top). The taxonomy has been pasted in from the relevant page of "Ssystema Naturae 2000". That's practically all there is; well, it's a copyvio. We can't take the whole content or the major content of our page from a single external source.
If you would now like to rescue the pages, yes, yes, by all means do. Just say. See above how to find them -- it's easy. But there are nearly 1000! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, pro tem, the ones that deserve rescuing are the "most important" ones, but how are we to recognize them? Perhaps an unanswerable question! Anyway, at the moment, I'm working on an article that's Something Completely Different. ;) IacobusAmor 13:39, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't quite know why, but, if you do that search, you will find that some very important ones (beginning with Chordata) appear at the top of the list. It's probably because they have the most interwiki links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe that's the order in which someone created the pages. To have begun with the most important would have made sense—not that the making of sense necessarily pertains to vicipaedian work! IacobusAmor 15:01, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right -- the simplest explanation is the best this time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have begun by deleting a few at the very bottom of the last page. So, if you do want to work on the most important, I suggest you do the same search and start at the top of the first page. Always change the strange subheading "Systema taxinomicum animalis" -- I'm sure you would anyway :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that concept, Wikipedia uses Classification, whose obvious Latin gloss might as well serve here, at least until someone finds an apter term. IacobusAmor 15:01, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I omitted to say that a solution was discussed, a while back, between Robert and me. But it doesn't really affect this discussion because the solution would be to create new pages on these taxa from reliable sources (which "Systema Naturae 2000" appeared not to be). Therefore, the existing pages would be completely deleted anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have I saved Chordata now, despite the faulty taxobox? That box was originally an "Automatic taxobox," whose difference with a plain old "Taxobox" I've asked about before (but not received a fully enlightening answer). IacobusAmor 15:01, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were nearly there. It is (I think) essential to remove the taxonomic table , or nearly all of it (more so the longer it is, this one was quite short) because it is someone else's work, not ours. Either incorporate it into text, or put the bits that will fit into the taxobox. I have made the taxobox work. Basically, if you copy over one of those old taxoboxes you will have to convert it manually to the new type, as you began to do and as I have completed. It is essential to have the line "| regnum = Animalia" -- without this it doesn't know what colour to choose and gives you all those error messages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, but that kind of manual work wastes time. Couldn't some kind programmer make the Automatic taxobox work in Vicipaedia? IacobusAmor 11:27, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Programmers, too, are human and can waste time. I suggest it's better not to use the outdated template. But it's up to the programmers, of course! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough if it's truly outdated. Experience had taught the reverse: since one had seen many tens of plain taxoboxes before encountering the first "automatic taxobox," the latter kind seemed newer. IacobusAmor 12:07, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having checked, I must admit you are right here. Automatic taxobox is newer. But whether your dream programmer can transfer it, I don't know: it doesn't look simple ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am now going through the whole list. If there is no text on the page, I am marking it "Non stipula". If there is a line of text, the remaining problem is the pirated taxonomy, so I am marking it "Taxinomia dubia". If anyone cares to rescue any of these pages, that'll be great: just do it and remove the template! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now marked them all up (I think). There were just under 1,000 in total. They have all been marked "Taxinomia dubia", and anyone who wants to rescue them could search for those that have this formula and set to work. (Just go to {{Taxinomia dubia}} and then "Nexus ad paginam".) It is essential to remove the tabulated taxonomy, because this is a copyvio; but in any case it's boring and repetitive, and could be replaced with a single sentence mentioning just a couple of main steps in the classification. The pages also need to be checked on other wikis, any interwiki links added, any useful references added.
Many of these pages have two formulae, "Taxinomia dubia" and "Non stipula". In my very quick judgment, the ones that have both formulae are likely to take longer to rescue -- they don't even have a single sentence of text -- and it may be better use of time to delete them and start again ... but of course others may think differently. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorizing DC[fontem recensere]

After putting a toe in the water, one runs back up the shore, seeing that the further categorization of DC at the moment is inadvisable, as Vicipaedia has too few of the thousands of articles that this subject ideally requires (see the abundance of intervici links for several proposed categories), and C.C. (as opposed to D.C.) remains embedded in the current categories. IacobusAmor 20:39, 16 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, let's get some of those articles written; but this is an ideal time to agree on the most suitable abbreviation and to change whatever needs changing. Have there been previous discussions of this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IIRC, "C.C." (Campus Columbiae ~ Campus Columbianus) got in early, perhaps influenced by talk at those élite summer gatherings one hears about, but "D.C." (Districtus Columbiae ~ Districtus Columbianus) has more to recommend it, not least because, first, the abbreviation DC is recognized worldwide, while CC looks like a carbon copy, and second, the thing that's obviously the Campus—partly equivalent to the original Campus, in Republican Rome—is not the district, but the Mall. IacobusAmor 11:27, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the word districtus is nonclassical may bother some, as may its declension (which some are likely to misappropriate), but then if a classical term had been wanted, what was wrong with regio and even terra? or perhaps something else, other than campus ? IacobusAmor 12:16, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urbs or -opolis?[fontem recensere]

A dear Usor sine nomine has improved the page on Terra Mariae by digging up a wonderful source of Latin place names which I had not previously been aware of. It has Chesapeake Bay as Sinus Chesapeacus (1698), overriding the older Sinus de Chessopeak used in Maryland's charter (1632). However, the Usor also changed Chesapeake City to Chesapeacopolis, which is not attested. According to De nominibus propriis, we may translate a name if it is composed of individually translatable words. My question is: should Chesapeake City be translated as Urbs Chesapeaciensis, Urbs Chesapeaca, Urbs Chesapeacae, Chesapeacopolis, or something else? Which is preferred? --Robert.Baruch 23:52, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding -opolis : to the extent that it's a freely productive suffix, a feature of the living language (see Angelopolis, Didacopolis, Franciscopolis), nobody could reasonably object to attaching it to anything. IacobusAmor 02:41, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question relates to a point Neander made regarding Dupont Circulus: that he'd prefer Circulus Dupont. And shouldn't we want to know whether, for "S Street," to prefer S Via or Via S? And so on. Thus the general question: when should it be "Name kind" (e.g., Vesuvius mons)? when should it be "Name Kind" (e.g., Iulius Mons)? and when should it be "Kind Name" (Mons Sinai)? IacobusAmor 02:38, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone surely must have done a study of Latin usage on this point. Some kinds of names feel right to me if the general word comes first (I call it type A: Via Appia, Forum Boarium, Mare Mediterraneum); with some the opposite feels right to me (type B: Vesuvius mons, Tiberis flumen) or it might be truer to say that in these latter cases free variation is the rule (mons Vesuvius, flumen Tiberis are also acceptable, as are Vesuvius and Tiberis without any general word).
My first guess is that if the feature simply has its own proper name, this name is king (this is type B): the general word is optional and can go either side. But, if the feature has been named after something else or given an adjectival description (this is type A) the name-word, encountered first, would be disorienting. Appia? a woman? Boarium what? a farm? Mediterraneum what? an inland plateau? So in those cases the general word had better come first.
So I think I agree with Neander that circulus Dupont is better, like via Appia (my type A), while I am very happy with Mississippi flumen (my type B). Returning to Chesapeake City, I would therefore go for Sinus Chesapeacus and Urbs Chesapeaca. But my logic here may be proved utterly wrong! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... continuing to think about it, there is one practical reason for doing it Iacobus's way in the title (the pagename), even if not in the text. This is that, when trying to find a page, you have less typing to do if the distinctive name comes first. This is why I think the US counties are better the way they are (I see now that Iacobus mentioned this at Disputatio:Dupont Circulus). If it's done the way we currently do it, you begin to type the distinctive name and you soon find your county. If it's done the other way, you have to type the whole word "comitatus" and then some more as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came here with a firm opinion, but then I started thinking about it, and after deleting my reply several times, I have to admit I have no idea what the rule should be. For Dupont Circulus would be the arguments against Comitatus Cecil (for Cecil County, Maryland, US) and against Cork Comitatus (for County Cork, Ireland): the order is the same as in the native language. So, Via Appia but Dupont Circulus. On the other hand, we English-speakers freely indulge our native language patterns and insist on The Appian Way. Perhaps because Latin is more flexible in word order, we should indulge the native language's word order as well? --Robert.Baruch 20:53, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, sorry if this is obvious: what about names that are only partially translatable? So should Ellicott City become Ellicott City or Urbs Ellicott or Ellicott Urbs? --Robert.Baruch 22:07, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Answered below). --Robert.Baruch 02:10, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox museum[fontem recensere]

Wouldn't some kind programmer like to make this infobox work? It should eventually govern thousands of examples. IacobusAmor 11:27, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do it; I like bashing my head against formulas that go twenty layers deep :D --Robert.Baruch 20:44, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Please see Formula:Capsa musei and change headings (and documentation) as appropriate. Example use is at Museum Britannicum, and indicates that some other formulas may need to be Latinized as well. Having English arguments is somewhat odious, however I think it is best in the long term because there are not enough programmers on la: to keep up with the changes to the templates in en:. --Robert.Baruch 21:49, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macte! Thanks for your efforts, but it's not working in the article Laogai Museum. IacobusAmor 12:14, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historica domuum musea? Musea domestica historica? or what?[fontem recensere]

For the category given in English as "Historic house museums in Washington, D.C." (a category including Aedes Albae, Domus Heurich, and more items to come), what's the best Latin? Temporarily it stands as "Historica domuum musea Vasingtoniae D.C." It's a subcategory of four categories: "Historic house museums in the United States," "Museums in Washington, D.C.," "Houses in Washington, D.C.," and "History museums in Washington, D.C." Nemine respondente, vide iterum infra. IacobusAmor 11:31, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the house historic? So Musea domuum historicarum? --Robert.Baruch 21:06, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Categoria:Aves Foederatarum Micronesiae Civitatum"(duplicata)[fontem recensere]

Just for general information, what does this category duplicate? IacobusAmor 16:36, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Aves Micronesiae (no idea if the two are exactly coterminous, but then, I suspect the birds don't know either). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 18 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Foederatae Micronesiae Civitates sunt parva Micronesiae pars. IacobusAmor 00:34, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A! Aves, sapientiores quam sum ego, fortasse bene sciunt. Si necesse sit, recrea s.t.p. categoriam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 05:31, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In nexibus, CFA = Civitates Foederatae Americae[fontem recensere]

UV, why do you keep changing links for CFA into links for Civitates Foederatae Americae ? They accomplish the same thing, but the version you prefer takes up nearly ten times as much space! IacobusAmor 00:34, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, what do you have against the sort of accents that will help many readers, especially beginners, grasp the grammar—diacritics of the sort that fastidious Roman writers of 1700–2000 years ago themselves used? IacobusAmor 00:53, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of appreciate the accents if they serve to disambiguate certain forms to make the reading easy. But changing CFA to Civitates Foederatae Americae  may be for efficiency's sake, removing one redirection that the servers have to resolve? --Robert.Baruch 20:43, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I edit a page, I usually change links that point to CFA to Civitates Foederatae Americae, because who knows, one day we might have a disambiguation page at CFA like en:CFA, therefore I usually change the link to the intended specific target.
DEFAULTSORT affects the order in which pages are listed on category pages, see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#defaultsort. Until a recent improvement in the MediaWiki software, accented characters would (unless there is a DEFAULTSORT in place) be sorted after the letter Z. For example, until recently, the page Ségny would (unless there is a DEFAULTSORT) be sorted not between Seggeurius and Segodunum, but after Szombathely! This behaviour has recently been improved in the MediaWiki software, but I am not sure whether it now works for all accented characters or just for some of them. So, to make sure that the pages are listed on category pages in a useful order, it is a good idea to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Segny}} (without accents!) to the page (usually just before the categories). --UV 23:26, 25 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Historic house museum' =?[fontem recensere]

I.e., a museum that's a historic house, a house-museum that's historic: historicum domús museum ? museum historicae domús ? historicum museum domesticum ? or what? Sunt multa centena harum domuum (vel horum museorum!) in Civitatibus Foederatis, quae vicissim in quinquagintá subcategoriis in Wikipediá digeruntur; atque adeo sunt tres in Phylarchiarum Arabicarum Confoederatione! IacobusAmor 02:01, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortasse oportet nomen novum conficere; censeo rem novellam esse. Casa Romuli olim ostenta est, cubiculumque iuvenis Augusti, sed minime "musea" appellata. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N, E, W, S, NE, SE, SW, NW[fontem recensere]

Which Latin abbreviations should be used for these (English) directions? The matter is messy because E & W start with the same letter in Latin, and we have two widely used competing terms for N (borealis, septentrionalis) and S (australis, meridianus [not to mention the novelty meridionalis]). IacobusAmor 12:14, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny, I was just thinking of that as I was driving along the highway and wondering what might Roman highway signs look like. I figured that the cardinal directions would go: S., Or., Occ., Au. (or M.), SOr., AOr., SOcc., AOcc. But surely there languages today that have this problem? --Robert.Baruch 20:28, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then again, according to Botanical Latin (Stearn, 2004), NW should probably be boreo-occidentalis and NE, boreo-orientalis, so BOcc., BOr. --Robert.Baruch 14:50, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see my comment at Disputatio:Circulus Dupont#Quadrants in addresses. --Robert.Baruch 02:00, 25 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constructiones[fontem recensere]

What is the name of these two constructiones in english and latin: eg.

first: Amaturus sum.
second: Amandus sum.

Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 13:09, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are examples of the periphrastic conjugation: the first is present indicative active, and the second is present indicative passive. These specific phrases are examples in Gildersleeve, #129. IacobusAmor 13:54, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what they are, I just didn't know how to say this in english and latin. Can you translate this to latin (periphrastic conjugation). Ivan.milicic3510 14:48, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ConiunctioConiugatio periphrastica --Robert.Baruch 20:30, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 12:17, 20 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is, ea, id et ille, illa, illud[fontem recensere]

Is there any different between these two pronoun (when they're replacing 3rd person): eg.

Ei est domus. Illi est domus.

Are these two sentences the same? (She/he has a house.) Ivan.milicic3510 17:01, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use is/ea/id when when you're talking about someone you have already mentioned, or are about to mention. There is no particular emphasis on the person mentioned. Use ille/illa/illud when you're talking about: (a) the remote past (as in, antiquitas illa, the far-off past), (b) a great man (as in, Cato ille, the great Cato), (c) a well-known person (as in, illi qui..., those whom we all know who...), or (d) the other of two people (as in, sed ille..., but that other guy...). Copied without shame from Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition. There are other interesting uses for ille/illa/illud. I suggest you pick up a copy of Bradley's Arnold from Google Books, it's a great book.
So in your examples, "Ei est domus" would mean "(The guy I just mentioned...) He has a house." While "Illi est domus" would probably mean "The other guy has a house." or maybe "(The guy I just mentioned who is incredibly famous...) He has a house." --Robert.Baruch 20:37, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 12:19, 20 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Officium =?[fontem recensere]

In commentario de Civitatum Foederatarum Census Officio, nomen officium significare velit 'bureau', verbum Anglicum (Francicum). Secundum autem Cassell's, officium = 'dutiful or respectful action; esp. of ceremonial action, attendance on some solemn occasion; sense of duty, respect, courtesy, deference; submission, allegiance; official employment'—et nihil plus. Nihil de parte administrationis. (Nihil etiam de aedificio vel conclave.) For 'bureau' and words of similar sense (like 'office of the X'), would a noun like ministerium or tabellarium be apter? Or is the shift in sense OK? ¶ And the word-order? Instead of 'United States's Census's X', would 'X of the Census of the United States' follow a more natural word order? IacobusAmor 11:32, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De eadem re responsum desidero ob nomen pinacothecae "Galleria degli Uffizi" Florentiae in Italia institutae. An "Pinacotheca Officiorum", "Porticus Officiorum"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verbum ministerium pro bureau fortasse est melior. Etiam Cassell's verbum bureau in ministerium transvertit, ita credo esse recte. As for the word order, what is the difference in Latin between sphaera mea and mea sphaera? According to Latin Word Order: structured meaning and information, a learned text by Devine and Stephens (2006), the word order for genitives with respect to their heads doesn't correlate with grammatical function, nor do they correlate with the pragmatics of the sentence. I *think* the conclusion is that order essentially means nothing, but Google Books doesn't let me read further into the chapter (6.1 Genitive Hyperbaton). But it's an interesting book, and I'm going to try to obtain a copy. --Robert.Baruch 13:47, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll want to see the discussion here. Personal pronouns are a different cortina piscium. I have a copy of Devine & Stephens, a book that shows all sorts of meaningful patterns relating to word-order. IacobusAmor 14:04, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good discussion (and I've done the fait accompli). --Robert.Baruch 14:32, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cumberland, Maryland = Cumberland (Terra Mariae) aut Cumbria (Terra Mariae)?[fontem recensere]

Should geographic place names be translated if they were translated for a different geographic place name? --Robert.Baruch 19:34, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One might want to retain the non-Latin for wholly made-up names that only by chance look like homonyms. So if this Cumberland has been named, say, for a John Cumber, keep it as Cumberland, but if it's been named for Cumbria, call it Cumbria (Terra Mariae)? Thus Bostonia, Novum Eboracum, etc. IacobusAmor 19:56, 21 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it was named for the Duke of Cumberland, so I guess it makes sense that it should be Cumbria. --Robert.Baruch 00:34, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their Latin title was indeed "Dux Cumbriae". I generally discourage transferring names in this way, but I must admit this one seems quite logical. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And then there are several other towns in the US named Cumberland which were named, and I am not making this up, after Cumberland, Maryland. So they would get to be called Cumbria, too! --Robert.Baruch 13:55, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this subject, there seems to be no (ahem) gap in our collective knowledge. ;) IacobusAmor 14:15, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*groan!* --Robert.Baruch 15:43, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ellicott City, Maryland = Ellicott City (Terra Mariae) aut Urbs Ellicott (Terra Mariae)?[fontem recensere]

Do names that are partially translatable get partially translated? Ellicott City was named in 1772 after three Ellicott brothers who were Quakers, so presumably they had no Latin name that we can use. --Robert.Baruch 00:36, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I knew there was an answer somewhere and I have just found it. (It speaks for "Urbs Ellicott".) Quote from VOP:TNP, my italics: "Si nomen Latinum adhuc non exstat usitatum, non vertatur, eis tamen exceptis quae in sermone suo vulgari constant e verbis cottidianis atque intelligibilibus. Ita, Pocatello (indecl.), Turris Eiffel, Nova Caesarea. Nomina composita autem numquam vertenda sunt nisi forte lingua Latina eandem compositionem iam cognoscit." "Turris Eiffel" is your valid example of the pattern to follow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 23 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, excellent. I should have RTFM first :) --Robert.Baruch 02:10, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

College Park, Maryland = Parcus/Parricus Collegii, aut Saeptum/Saepta Collegii?[fontem recensere]

I'm pretty sure that the Park in College Park comes from the sense of park meaning a plot of land set aside or enclosed. Many sources indicate that the word derives from Medieval Latin parricus (later parcus), which in turn comes from earlier German. The Latin source appears to be 8th century, Lex Ripuaria. If, however, we take paddock, which is the same thing (an enclosed tract of land) then we already have Latin saeptum (Lewis & Short indicates this is usually plural, so saepta). There is also campus, which I think might not work as well, because it means an area of land, not specifically enclosed or used for anything, a field, a plain. Can I have your opinions? --Robert.Baruch 16:15, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cassell's: horti "grounds, park, Cic., Hor., Tac." ? IacobusAmor 16:20, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saeptum is the word that corresponds to "park" in the way that it's used in English field names. Whether that's the usage here, I'm not sure, but from what Robert says it seems possible. To catch the meaning in more recent English, paradisus would be worth considering. Horti, as Iacobus says, might serve (not hortus sg.). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paradisus: "vivaria" autem quae nunc vulgus dicit, quos παραδείσους Graeci appellant? (Gellius II.20.4) That which the public now calls "vivaria", which the Greeks call paradeisous...? Am I reading that correctly? I don't think the meaning of Park as used in College Park refers to a game preserve or zoo... --Robert.Baruch 20:26, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name had had quite a history before that. It was in origin a hunting park, the kind that Assyrian and Persian kings enjoyed so much (also God, who had one at Eden). So, yes, the village where I grew up had a Big House whose park (in the paradisus sense) was so important that the house was named after it (en:Dyrham Park); not far away one or two of the farms had fields whose names (I researched the village field names) were "... Park" in the saeptum sense, an enclosed bit of land with a hedge round it. Whether College Park reached for one of these senses, or another one again, I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 22 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, in that case I think saeptum is more apropos to College Park, since there was nothing about hunting or animals involved in the lot situated near the college. It was just a chunk of land. Thanks for the analysis, I really appreciate it. --Robert.Baruch 02:09, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only gloss for park in Ainsworth's is vivarium, but that seems to be referring to the first sense of the English word (Merriam-Webster: 'an enclosed piece of ground stocked with game and held by royal prescription or grant') or the historically next one (Merriam-Webster: 'a tract of land that often includes lawns, woodland, and pasture attached to a country house and is used as a game preserve and for recreation'). Since many a national park in the USA is indeed an 'enclosed piece of ground stocked with game and (managed) by (governmental) prescription or grant', maybe vivarium belongs in the Latin name of the National Park Service: Nationale Vivariorum Ministerium? Ministerium Vivariorum Nationalium? (The adjective national could modify either noun; but since we have things called "national parks," the second example is probably better, though the English phrase might then more precisely be written as National-Park Service.) But College Park probably wouldn't be one of those; nor would some properties managed by the National Park Service, like the Mall in Washington, D.C. However, the only ineradicable words in Merriam-Webster's second definition are a tract of land, as all the rest are made inessential by the clause 'that often includes', so maybe vivarium would still be applicable to a park that has something to do with a college. IacobusAmor 12:25, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Difficult sentence on epilepsy - give up?[fontem recensere]

Salve, Vicipedianes. I was considering writing a one-liner new article on epilepsy. I have minimal formal training in Latin and Italian, so it is really a lot of work. I did read Latin for Dummies a couple of years ago. My last contribution was in 2007... [13]. Can anyone help me? Is it pointless to start a new article with very limited Latin language skills? There is some language learning involved and it is a welcome diversion.

So here goes: "Epilepsia est cerebrum morbus. Subita perturbationes neuronorum creptiones faciunt."

Word choices: If you don't mind, I'll explain the process that I used. I looked up the [Morbus] page and used some as examples. It seemed appropriate to use the (disease name) est(organ) morbus construction. To avoid infinite headaches with syntax and declensions, I didn't use a split sentence like the others do (qua / quod). For the second sentence, I'm trying to convey 'sudden disturbances in neuron electrical function'. The verb in that sentence is simply 'causes'. Is facio or causa the approprate verb? I looked up anything starting with neur... in the search box and found [neuronum] and also found [electricitas]. In one of the online Latin dictionaries, I found 'creptio' as the most appropriate Latin word for 'seizure' though it is medieval. The Italian Wikipedia was surprisingly of little help in finding Latin words for modern concepts. 'Vexatio' seemed inappropriate for disturbance, so I chose 'perturbatio'. The sentence also has to convey "acute" disturbance in the medical sense. So 'subito' seemed appropriate. So I got the words, now putting them together.

  • 'Facio' is the verb. Indicative mood, active voice, present tense, plural, third person: faciunt?
  • 'Creptio(nis)' is the object, noun 3rd decl female. Accusative case? Need plural: creptiones?
  • Now what is the subject? Is it the disturbances or is it the neurons?
  • 'Neuronum' is probably 2nd declension neuter. Use genitive? Neuronorum?
  • 'Perturbatio(nis)" is probably 3rd decl fem, plural. Perturbationes?
  • Subitus is an adjective, applies to 'perturbatio' (f), so: subita?

I gave up on putting "electrical" in there.

I feel like Brian: ROMANES EUNT DOMUS. [14] Hope you can help or that you found it entertaining at least :) Janbrogger 23:08, 23 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Brian, err, I mean Janbrogger, Rome wasn't built in a day so I encourage you to go on. In your second sentence, yes perturbationes seems to be your subject(disturbances of the neurons -genitive plural), so perturbationes faciunt etc. Most growth and development is self-growth. Just keep at it. --Jondel 03:31, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe it would help to know the meaning of what you've written:
Epilepsia est cerebrum morbus.
Epilepsy is a brain, an illness.
Subita perturbationes neuronorum creptiones faciunt.
A sudden. A disturbance of nerves makes "creptions."
('A sudden' is fem. sing.; also possible is 'Sudden', neut. pl.) A supposed noun creptio isn't in any of the (three classical) dictionaries I checked. Cassell's says classical Latin for seizure in the sense of 'a bout of illness' is tentatio, and Cicero has novae tentationes 'new attacks of disease'. ¶ A word for "electrical" is unnecessary. The article in Wikipedia begins: "Epilepsy . . . is a common chronic neurological disorder characterized by seizures." IacobusAmor 11:49, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help. The question I asked was "give up or not" given my limited skills. From the tone of what you've written, am I to conclude that I should give up or not give up? User:Helveticus_montanus was most helpful in improving the article. tentatio does seem more analogous to acute worsening of a chronic condition (like gout) and so I found ereptiones or creptiones in Whittaker but after some further research it does not seem appropriate. In Medical Latin in the Roman Empire I found only one mention of seizure, which is raptus (p. 196) so raptus it is. "Disturbances in neurons makes seizures". It is rudimentary, but it is a start.
Remember the aphorism about little acorns and big oaks! ¶ I've helped the text out a little. The assertion that epilepsy is often a sign of other diseases isn't found in the extended definition at en:Epilepsy, so I softened the adverb to aliquando. (But still, is it true at all?) The adjective chronicus isn't in Cassell's, which recommends longinquus and diuturnus. The relative in quo may not be best, given the placement of the antecedent, but the sentences need some kind of connection. IacobusAmor 16:04, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep at it! We want you! Ereptio makes everything clear. It is a good word, though not used (so far as I know) in a medical sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at Terra Mariae, and then take a look at the version before December 2010 (i.e. go to History and then select one of the edits prior to December 2010). Look at all the little ? markers left by others more learned than me. That's how bad I was when I first started. I couldn't get my cases right, I got my adjective genders mixed up... it was a horror show. Also, I had this terrible reliance on Whitaker's Words, which (I feel) is a terrible dictionary to use, because it brings up mainly rare Latin when a perfectly good classical word suffices. Anyway, my comment at the time was, "I'm giving up until I'm better." Well, I couldn't stay away. I tried simpler articles, writing some stubs, and the simple sentences were easier. I tried not to include all the nuances of sentences in the English Wiki, instead going for just the main idea.
My favorite dictionary is Traupman, The New College Latin and English Dictionary, followed by Cassell's (the hardcover version). Get those, and also get a copy of Orberg's Lingua Latina.
That being said, the only way you're going to get better is practice. Also, I hate to advertise, but there is a great series of online, real-time, teacher-led Latin courses (US$400 a pop, where a "pop" is 13 or 14 weeks or so). If you're serious about getting good in Latin, and can't seem to pick it up by reading the books, and can't find a local university with Latin courses (or find them terribly inconvenient), then hie thee to the online course.
But please don't give up! --Robert.Baruch 16:24, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement and advice! I did look up Open University latin courses, but they were a little expensive. The course you referenced seemed very useful. This is still a hobby project, but it is fun to keep Latin a living language! So my wish list just expanded. Janbrogger 19:58, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An inexpensive way of improving is to add words to articles in Vicipaedia, especially on a variety of topics, and watch carefully what happens to them! IacobusAmor 20:50, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sentence[fontem recensere]

Is this correct:

Dux castra in base montis positurus fuit.

How to say "cross the river"? - Milites fluminem ?? fuerunt.
Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 10:45, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'base' or 'foot' of a mountain is its radix. 'Soldiers cross a river' = Milites flumen transeunt. There's no such word as fluminem : if you figure out why, you'll have learned something! :) IacobusAmor 12:00, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fluminem accusativus est. In lingua mea verbum "transere" est verbum cum substantiva in accusativo. Ivan.milicic3510 12:32, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but all neuter nouns have the nominative and the accusative identical. The nominative is flumen, and this is a neuter noun, so the accusative is flumen also. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot this is neuter. OK. Thanks! Ivan.milicic3510 13:07, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perseveranter tardissimum est[fontem recensere]

Ecce: "Barulum (-i, n.) (vel Barolum (-i, n.) sive Barduli (-orum, m.)) (Italiane: Barletta) Urbs Italiae et municipium, circiter 94 400 incolarum, in Apulia regione et caput, cum Andria et Tureno, Provinciae Barolensis-Andriensis-Tranensis—ta-daa!!!est." IacobusAmor 14:09, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HAHAHAE!!! Ta-dah! --Robert.Baruch 16:29, 24 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sed quare tu non emendas? --Robert.Baruch 20:49, 25 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commentarius duplicatus[fontem recensere]

Martinus sodalibus vicipaedianis spd.

Duas paginas vidi unius scriptoris latinisticae, cui nomen est Valahfridus Stroh (ita se nominat) habemusque formam latinificatam Vilfredus Stroh. Ita censeo alteram esse delendam. :) --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 16:15, 25 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratias ago, Martine. Contribui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 25 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question and short answer[fontem recensere]

How to translate german "darum" in latin? eg. in german it's possible to say only "darum" to answer to the question ("Warum? - Darum."). In english this isn't possible (you can't say "Why? - Because; with because must go something). And in latin? Ivan.milicic3510 09:22, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Because" is a perfectly idiomatic response in English, albeit often evasive. IacobusAmor 12:58, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"darum" fits to the why? question, but also has an indicative characteristic in German. One may use nam agitur to give that idea in Latin. As for the short "Warum? - Darum!" there is probably no perfect translation. Best approximation I guess would be cur? - idcirco!. El Suizo 13:16, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thanks a lot! Ivan.milicic3510 09:14, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onomastic dictionary of latin, with declension[fontem recensere]

Hi fellows, I'm a very amateur latinist, but very fond of the immortal language. And I'm here to ask for some online onomastic dictionary of proper names. I was reminded of that by reading the article Anaticula Cumminosa. I could never know that Douglas, in Latin, is Duglassius!

Further, I would to know who are the guys on that tabern pictured above. The file's name contains "Sampa", and clearly they're in São Paulo, which happens to be the city where I live. Just curiosity. Casquilho 20:55, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to the names, we have a list of recent Latin first names Index praenominum, most of which are commonly accepted (but no guarantees) and a much longer list, compiled by an enthusiast, in userspace: Usor:Gualterius de Reptilibus/Index nominum Latine redditorum (again, no guarantees). The equivalents exist because, until the early 19th century at any rate, people often needed to have a Latin version of their names. Newer forenames that only came into use after that period don't generally have reliable Latin equivalents.
I know nothing about the picture! Does anyone else? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was taken on 14 Ian 2006, the day before it was uploaded, which to me means that the picture was taken by the Wikipedian himself, who would probably be Daniel Indech. You could ask him :) --Robert.Baruch 13:27, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratissimum sum! Casquilho 21:22, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding formulae for stipulae[fontem recensere]

Amicus IacobusAmor suggested that there should be stipulae for specific orders of plants (as listed here). I'm willing to do the programming and translation. Is there a consensus that we want (not necessarily need, but want) all these formulae stipularum? --Robert.Baruch 13:50, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the point myself. I think anyone who creates a page belonging to any biological order could and should create a category for the order, if it doesn't exist already. I don't know what further help an extensive range of stipulae would give. But of course it's fine with me if others would find it helpful.
Continuing to think about it, creating all those stipulae would imply creating all the categories too. Well, whatever is decided about the stipulae, there could be an argument for creating the categories at this stage even if they are empty. It would be handy to be able to predict, when starting a biological page, that the category for the relevant order will certainly be there waiting. I guess you could do that anyway? Any other comments on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the usual question of lumping vs. splitting. IacobusAmor 11:18, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's your view, then? I'm neutral, thus far. If, as Robert says, you're suggesting the stipulae, would you care to say why? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for programmers[fontem recensere]

How do we make the formula {{Mexico labeled map|float=right}} work? IacobusAmor 11:18, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should work now: Formula:Mexico labeled map.--Aylin 12:59, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested modification to Common.js[fontem recensere]

This is to support {{Collapsible list}}s. The template relies on MediaWiki:Common.js to look at the classes and provide hide/show for classes marked with "collapsed", so could someone with the right permissions copy the "Collapsible tables" section from en:MediaWiki:Common.js (up to and including $( createCollapseButtons ); ). If implemented correctly, all of the following should show a hide/show (or celare/monstrare) link at the right side of the page.

Using {{Collapsible list}}[fontem recensere]

Formula:Collapsible list

Using the equivalent HTML from {{Collapsible list}}[fontem recensere]

Simple NavFrame, not collapsed initially[fontem recensere]

Simple NavFrame, initially collapsed[fontem recensere]

Thanks! --Robert.Baruch 15:56, 1 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, something else seems to be missing, but I haven't found out what it is yet. I've got to go now, but I'll try to look into it again later tonight (which still doesn't mean that I will find it out then. . .) --Aylin 17:22, 1 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have reverted the changes to MediaWiki:Common.js for now, for three reasons:
  • It did not work correctly (of the four examples given above, the first, the second and the fourth did not work at all, and the third was not initially uncollapsed but was initially collapsed).
  • I am not sure as to implications for accessibility of content – do these contents appear in print or are they "lost" when a page is printed? Do these contents appear for blind people who use screenreaders? etc. In my view, a more accessible solution would be not to put the "unimportant" contents into a collapsed part of the page, but instead to put them either into a section farther down on the same page or onto another page (and link to that page).
  • Very similar functionality will be provided in the next version of MediaWiki, which will become active on la.wikipedia in a number of weeks, see this testpage where the new features are already active. I would therefore discourage from implementing similar functionality in our MediaWiki:Common.js now, which would become obsolete in a few weeks or even disturb the new functionality then.
Greetings, --UV 19:57, 1 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me. (Then we should probably avoid writing important information into {{Nav}} as well, because it won't be recognised by screenreaders and won't be printed.) --Aylin 11:39, 2 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure everyone concerned already knows this ... but, in case it's useful just for now, the {{Nav}} boxes provide a simplified form of that functionality (a box that is initially collapsed, with a label "Monstrare"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 2 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing ...[fontem recensere]

Please help: replace this red text with a translation of the English message below. Thank you!
Announcing the Derby Multilingual Challenge

This is the first multilingual Wikipedia collaboration. All Wikipedians can take part, in any Wikipedia language. The challenge runs from 1 May until 3 September 2011.
Sign up now!
" Wikipedia is particularly pleased to see that Derby Museums are encouraging the creation of articles in languages other than English." (Jimmy Wales, 14 January 2011)

Omnes programmatores evocati![fontem recensere]

Nunc formulam "Infobox military person" egemus; vide Usama bin Ladin. IacobusAmor 14:51, 2 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declinatio graeca -on?[fontem recensere]

Quidamne Graece sciens scit declinationem verbi "Triaenodon obesus"? (Apud Fabullum non inveni.) Odon est "dens". Gratias ago. --Alex1011 12:43, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Gen: Triaenodontis etc. (secundum declinationem tertiam)--Utilo 13:02, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ergo nunc acc. "triaeonodontem obesum" applicavi. --Alex1011 06:23, 5 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vonkitudo inter vicos?[fontem recensere]

Are others noticing any wonkiness in the way Vicipaedia displays texts? For more than twenty-four hours, the editing-pages have exhibited some weird features, not always improvements. For example, in comparing edits, the "diss" button no longer highlights changes in red. Also, the buttons by which one might insert em-dashes, symbols (such as the paragraph-sign), letters with diacritics, and such have disappeared. Also, the "recensere" button is now to the left of headings, where it adds ugliness by keeping the headings from being flushleft. The only improvement seems to be that the (many) lines of blue blankspace---about which there's a discussion-thread somewhere---have disappeared. (See how one has had to insert an em-dash: as three hyphens.) IacobusAmor 19:19, 6 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In another place that I'm editing, the blue blankspace was ba-a-a-a-a-ck (and the margins of the editing box were All Wrong), but it isn't back here, as this comment is being typed. :/ IacobusAmor 21:19, 6 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The systemic failures reported above continue: the "diss" button produces inadequate results, the symbol-insertion buttons are totally missing, and the "recensere" button is in an unaccustomed (and unattractive) place. Quid fit? IacobusAmor 13:29, 7 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be a browser specific problem. Are you using Internet Explorer? I'm using firefox and everything looks normal to me — but I've just tested Internet Explorer (with Wikipedia's monobook skin) and experienced the same problems you mentioned above. --Aylin 14:57, 7 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that must be it, but it looks more like a Wikipedia problem than a browser problem: one can't rightly change one's own architecture and then blame something else for not accommodating it. Meanwhile, the situation persists. In the absence of special buttons, I've had to go back to adding en-dashes by means of typing "&" and "ndash;" instead of using the specific symbols. Whatever Wikipedia thinks is an improvement here isn't. IacobusAmor 13:31, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woohoo! The placement of the "recensere" button suddenly reverted to its old position, flushright!!! IacobusAmor 17:59, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no! Now it's back in the wrong place, flushleft. What is going on? IacobusAmor 18:00, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the problem has been reported to the developers (Bugzilla:28840) — all we can do is wait until they fix it ;) --Aylin 18:42, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This morning, the problems seem to have been solved. IacobusAmor 12:42, 10 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biochor?[fontem recensere]

For '(natural) environment', our geography-writing friend has used biochor (-is) instead of circumiectus (-us). Do we have an attestation? Which of these terms is to be preferred? IacobusAmor 17:33, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you believe dictionaries are attestations, Traupman has environment = circumiecta, -orum. Biochor (English biochore) is something completely different — it is a specific terrestrial type which similar biological organisms colonize — and probably comes from the user's native language (possibly Czech). What page is biochor on? --Robert.Baruch 21:30, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brasilia. [Insert here the paragraph sign, which Vicipaedia no longer makes available to this contributor.] Incidentally, that article presents another tadaa-worthy esse : "Inter popularissimos destinatus Pantanal, tropicus hygrobiotopos in Regione Medioccidentali; silva Amazonica in Regione Septemtrionali; culturalis historicaque periegesis in civitatibus Fodinarum Generalium et Bahiae; litora et moles arenosae in Regione Boreorientali; litora in civitatibus Fluminis Ianuarii et Sanctae Catharinae; temperati montes in Regione Meridionali; et negotiorum itinera urbem Paulistanam (tadaa!) sunt." That one has just now been fixed. IacobusAmor 00:43, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Biochor is also in the article on Oecothesis—apparently a concept equivalent to 'oecological niche', but the article cites no attestation, so it wants a "convertimus" formula. [Insert here the paragraph sign, which Vicipaedia no longer makes available to this contributor.] On that author's native language, our best guess is a Romance language, most probably Portuguese or a dialect of western Spain. IacobusAmor 00:50, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would warrant a {{dubsig}} rather than a {{convertimus}}, since biochor, -is would violate Noli Fingere. --Robert.Baruch 12:54, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he just created a page named biochor where he says habitatio is a synonym. If it means the same as the latin word habitatio, why make up a new word? bizzare. All the other wikis call it by a latin word derived from habitatio, none use biochor so it doesn't seem to be a (preferred?) technical word (is it one or just made up entirely?)-- 03:35, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word seems to be used in exactly that form in Czech; biochora is found in Polish, and also as an alternative in Czech. It does have a reasonable derivation (Greek bio- "life" + chora "country") but the correct Latin, if we wanted to fingere, would be "biochora". Note the single-line stub en:Biochore, which was added by an apparently Polish editor and has no reliable source (yet). I simply don't know whether this word is necessary: biogeographers might want a term different from "habitat(io)", but then what do they currently do in English and other languages? We've seen no evidence that they use this particular word.
Anyway, my view is that if the word is wanted, we can borrow it (thanks to Polish!) in its proper Graeco-Latin form "biochora". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quaestio soluta? Vide Habitationem. Note that a biochora is most definitely not the same thing as a habitatio, though the original Latinizer seems to have taken the definition of the article Biochora (imperfectly) from matter found in en:Habitat. IacobusAmor 12:07, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nauru[fontem recensere]

Will some kind programmer fix the redirects so that the title "Nauruna Insula" redirects to "Nauru" (whose lemma is Nauru) and the title "Nauru" doesn't redirect to anything? IacobusAmor 17:45, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Aylin 18:48, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macte! IacobusAmor 18:54, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox settlement[fontem recensere]

Using Infobox settlement generates this error message: "Noli uti hanc formulam. Potius utiris Formula:Capsa coloniae cum argumentos eosdem." What's bad about Infobox settlement ? (Not all settlements are colonies.) + Quid significant haec verba arcana: utiris et argumentos eosdem ? It might be useful for an expert programmer to review all the infoboxes. IacobusAmor 17:59, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just Latinitas. I decided that, in accordance with several other Capsa formulae, this one should also be a capsa. I usually just translate the name of the "top level" formula, and leave all the subformulas alone, since converting anything and everything would be a huge undertaking. ¶ As for the statement. Am I wrong that the imperative for utor, uti, usus sum is utiris? argumentos eosdem is a case error: I have changed it to (cum) argumentis eisdem (with the same arguments). --Robert.Baruch 21:19, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One hadn't realized it was brand-new; it seemed as if it might have dated from the earliest era. [Insert the missing paragraph-sign here.] If it's an imperative, you might want utere. And it's not just case: argumentos has the wrong gender ! IacobusAmor 21:50, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops. Anyway, it should all be fixed now. Thanks for the oversight! --Robert.Baruch 12:52, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now as for settlement, I wasn't certain what the Latin would be. Traupman has settlement (the colony itself) as colonia, but I doubt that carries the sense of settlement that we're looking for: any (locationally) permanent grouping of humans. Nevertheless, I had nothing else. --Robert.Baruch 21:32, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our patron saint Isidore to the rescue? Civitas est hominum multitudo societatis vinculo adunata... "A civitas is a multitude of people united by a bond of community..."? So, would Capsa civitatis be a more apt name? --Robert.Baruch 21:43, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Utere is the imperative of utor; a civitas is not a settlement but possibly the community or people of a settlement, and in general political context means the collective citizenship of the country. Colonia in latin literally means a settlement (usually in a distant land) and only secondarily means colony (for which there is no separate word). It derive from colere to cultivate, since settlers were usually farmers. For non distant settlements you also have vicus and oppidum. 11:07, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe colonia is best then after all. [Insert here the paragraph-sign, which Vicipaedia doesn't enable some of us to use anymore.] 'To settle (in a place)' is regularly considere, but that's probably unhelpful, since it's intransitive, making locus consessus 'settled place' unlikely (unless the place did the settling, as maybe after a landslide). Ainsworth says 'to settle one's self and all one's effects at London' = Sedem omnium rerum ac fortunarum suarum Londini collocare, and that might give us conlocatio sedis 'settlement', but that phrase looks unwarranted and doesn't seem to be an established idiom (or Cassell's should have it). Oh well. IacobusAmor 11:45, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordo creationis[fontem recensere]

Is there a way of listing articles in the order of their creation? I've occasionally noticed that some articles surviving little changed from the early days need conceptual reworking. For example, since 17 Februarii 2004, Astoria has been saying its subject is a city, instead of a neighborhood of a borough of a city. Revisiting those old articles might prove profitable. IacobusAmor 17:59, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this is possible. There's a page called Specialis:Paginae veterrimae, which is supposed to list articles by the date of the most recent edit, but it has not been updated since October 2009. --Aylin 20:38, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Est : novum ta-daa![fontem recensere]

Ecce in Legatio italiana puerorum exploratorum et guidarum Europae: "Legationis finis iuvenes pueri et puellae educare, adsequens ratio motii puerorum exploratorum quod Robertus Baden-Powell instituit, (ta-daa!) est." IacobusAmor 19:03, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sed emendesne? --Robert.Baruch 21:21, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non emendavimus. The author was still working on it. IacobusAmor 21:52, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aikido[fontem recensere]

Magistri, alia amabote rem aestimare. Modo dicam et non possum animadvertere magis; mihi accipere durum est verbas 'motilitas, efficiandas et adaptativoque' in sententia: Motilitas, positus, accuratio et coordinatio sunt principia rerum praeciparum ad efficiendas technicas et discipulos discere in modo flexibili adaptativoque. Videntur verba italicorum. Gratias ago in anticipatione.--Jondel 13:15, 9 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Fortasse motilitas est mobilitas (Anglice: mobility).
ita mobilitas.--Jondel 13:58, 12 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Et fortasse positus est positio (Anglice: position) aut status (Anglice: pose)?
Fortasse positio. Ita in anglice position.--Jondel 13:58, 12 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Estne "ad efficiendas technicas" Anglice "for efficient techniques"? Si verum, fortasse "ad artem efficacem" aut "ad artem proficientem".
qualibet, anglice for the exercise of technique. Ita, artem efficacem.--Jondel 13:58, 12 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incertus. Fortasse apte(?), adcommodo(?)--Jondel 13:58, 12 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credo in anglice sit: The movement, position accuracy and coordination are the special principles towards/for exercise of techniques and for students to learn in a flexible and adaptive manner. Argumentum meum est ob rem exstant, non necessitas est creara novas verba.--Jondel 11:41, 10 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Movement, position, accuracy, and coordination are the special principles for practicing' ?= Motus, status, diligentia, et gestus sunt propria meditando praecepta. IacobusAmor 12:40, 10 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene. --Jondel 14:01, 12 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntactical changes in process[fontem recensere]

Anonymous contributor is in the process of changing the syntax of select categories, from NOUN(nom.) + NOUN(gen.) to NOUN(nom.) + ADJ(nom.). Thus, at the moment, we have "Aves Iaponiae" but "Fauna Iaponica" (no longer "Fauna Iaponiae"), while in the rest of the world we have "Fauna Africae," "Fauna Oceaniae," "Fauna Samoae," etc. It's unclear whether he's going to do all the categories, of which probably at least several thousand use NOUN(nom.) + NOUN(gen.) syntax. If not, these changes are introducing inconsistencies into the system. IacobusAmor 12:45, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do have a general issue here: which syntax is preferable? The English wikipedia prefers a genitivelike preposition over the adjective: "Lakes of Florida," rather than "Floridian lakes." Similarly, French ("Lac de Florida"), Italian ("Laghi della Florida"), and Portuguese ("Lagos da Flórida") use a genitivelike preposition from Latin de, while Esperanto ("Lagoj en Florido") and German ("See in Florida") use the concept of in. Of course Latin has its own tendencies, but generating a Latin genitive out of a novel or little-known noun may involve less invention than generating an adjective from it. Also, for people, the genitive is almost mandatory. How would we say "Films of Robert Mitchum" with adjectives? "Pelliculae Robertanae Mitchumanae"? Thus, in regard to the amount of invention necessary for making categories, the rule of "Noli fingere" would seem to favor the genitive. Perhaps would explain the reasoning behind his syntax. IacobusAmor 12:45, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be one thing if the scope covered only the reptiles, but now the title "Aves Italiae" has become "Aves Italicae," "Fauna Novae Caledoniae‎" has become "Fauna Neocaledonia," "Fauna Europae" has become "Fauna Europaea," "Pisces Britanniae" has become "Pisces Britannici," and so on. A comment in one of's editboxes is "Latinius est adiectivum pro genitivo," and that may be right, but in view of the system already in place, is it advisable? IacobusAmor 13:08, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Results of a quick Google search: "Rex Angliae" = 56,000, but "Rex Anglicus" = 924; "Regem Angliae" = 31,200, but "Regem Anglicum" = 221. The overwhelming favorite (at least with kings) is the genitive, not the adjective. IacobusAmor 13:08, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that in creating categories using adjectives instead of genitives, contributor isn't including the interwiki links. Is that advisable? IacobusAmor 14:29, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear... so many imminent changes. Shouldn't we ask him/her first why is s/he doing so?--Xaverius 14:38, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will throw my hat into the ring: I don't like NOUN(nom.) + ADJ(nom.). It seems to me that a "Floridian lake" is somewhat different than a "lake of Florida". My feeling is that the former implies there is something particularly Floridian about the lake -- as if there could be a Floridian lake in, say, Georgia. --Robert.Baruch 21:00, 13 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, we have more Venetian blinds in Florida than in Venice, and we should allow that more Welsh terriers might be living in Patagonia than in Wales; but then, in contrast, we surely have more plaster of paris outside Paris than in it: so it's reasonable to conclude that both syntactical forms have support. Likewise, in Latin, the grammar books tell us that civis Romanus is idiomatic, and civis Romae would be Just Plain Wrong, so a "Categoria:Cives Romae" should also be Just Plain Wrong; but then, in contrast, the Biblia Sacra gives us "Bethlehem of Judea" with a genuine genitive: in Bethlehem Judae (Matt. 2:5), not in Bethlehem Judaeo, so a "Categoria:Urbes Iudaeae" would reflect an attested structure. IacobusAmor 13:06, 14 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If not violating the "noli fingere" custom is a desirable goal, using a genitive may attract less danger. Suppose we want to make a category for museums in Chinocup, a village in Western Australia. (Since this is a hypothetical illustration, ignore the possibility that the number of museums there is less than one!) Which structure violates "noli fingere" more: "Categoria:Musea vici Chinocup" or "Categoria:Musea Chinocupensia"? The latter, no? The former leaves the placename indeclinable. Perhaps millions of placenames—think of China! India! Japan! Indonesia! Pakistan! Iran!—have no attested Latin adjectival forms. So, at least where appositives can clarify the structure (see vici in the example above), we should prefer the genitive, yes? IacobusAmor 13:06, 14 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One might argue no, on the grounds that the suffixes -ensis and -anus are well-attested. If they can rightly be considered productive (and biological nomenclature shows that they are), an adjective like Chinocupensis, -e is perfectly good & acceptable—and structurally attested—Latin. :/ IacobusAmor 13:06, 14 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're absolutely right. I still think that just in category names, treating them as a special case, it's normally better and easier to use the geographical nouns in the genitive. We then have a rule that any Latinist can apply, that will suit every case, and that will not introduce the ambiguities that an adjective like "Anglicus" or "Turcicus" often would introduce. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a practical matter, thousands of established categories—nearly all of those that connect a pair of nouns—use a genitive, but only a few use an adjective: the commutation that is undertaking would therefore entail a massive amount of work, of the kind that bots can't (yet) do. Is proposing to do it? IacobusAmor 13:06, 14 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's moving beyond the reptiles now, into other animals, or should we say Animals? A curiosity of his style is that he insists that we speak of Bees and Birds and Butterflies, not of bees and birds and butterflies. IacobusAmor 16:47, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now blocked the address and reverted nearly all the changes. They contravene several rules, notably the rule on all known wikis against redirections of categories -- we mustn't do this or allow anyone else to do it -- and also our own guidelines on categories at VP:CAT.
If anyone else has time to check the interwiki links on en:wiki, I'd be grateful: I'm in a rush.
We long ago settled that we would use geographical names in the genitive, as a general rule, in category names of this form: it's not stylish Latin but it is acceptable and (as some have said above) it avoids awkward ambiguities; the adjectives tend to introduce those ambiguities. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:44, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhodanus et Alpis[fontem recensere]

Cur Rhodanus et Alpis et non Rhodanus et Alpes?--Helveticus montanus 06:35, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licet "Alpis sg." Latine scribere; minime (ni fallor) Francogallice.
... sed etiam licet mutare si melius placet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O, quid fecisti?[fontem recensere]

Ecce: "Tropidophiidae est familiae serpentum inventa est Mexico et Caraibo merdidionale sunt." IacobusAmor 20:11, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of names and redirections[fontem recensere]

I believe that Categoria:Nominum_redirectiones and its content should be deleted (excepting those that actually have some content, like Angela). Most of the pages are just redirections to Latin versions of foreign names, which are largely orphan pages. Or else they should be changed into full re-direct pages to the Latin version (and not a sort of soft-redirect as they are now). I do not think that they add anything to our vici, exceptong for translation of (largely) Italian names. Any thoughts on this? --Xaverius 13:25, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only reason for making them soft redirects, rather than full redirects, is that soft redirects can carry interwiki links. But I don't really know if this is a good enough reason. I rather agree with you that they don't add anything useful and could be turned into full redirects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If pepole are looking for Latin versions of their names, they may well want to go to the right page, rather than to a soft-redirect. If we make these changes, the category will be redundant and shall be deleted. --Xaverius 17:43, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess so. As far as categories are concerned, it's possible to categorise redirects, as you know: I have sometimes categorised redirects as "Verba Anglica", for example, when the redirect is an English word (useful maybe because the English word is discussed on the page) but the actual pagename is a Latin word. In the same way, it's possible to categorise a redirect for an Italian forename as "Praenomina Italica", and it might make sense to do so. I don't have strong views on this: what do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burgum vel burgus[fontem recensere]

I thought it was burgum, as in Edinburgum & Pittsburgum, but then we have Categoria:Burgi Wessexiae. Is one wrong? or do we have two distinct words here, one neuter and one masculine? IacobusAmor 11:00, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is "burgus": --Alex1011 11:09, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This (Germanice) claims that burgus est castrum et burgum est urbs. --Alex1011 11:14, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit surprised if I got this right. I don't remember thinking about it :) But, yes, these are the defensive castra of the kingdom of Wessex. Many of them are towns also, but not all of them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of fire = ?[fontem recensere]

I know that uti takes an ablative, so that to use fire = igni uti (and not ignem uti). Does the same idea carry over to usus? Is use of fire = igni usus or usus ignis? --Robert.Baruch 17:11, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"usus ignis" mea opinione. --Alex1011 20:21, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et alii Vicipaediani? Quid creditis? --Robert.Baruch 23:29, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non credo sed scio: Alex noster recte dixit. Neander 00:01, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eum est quod audire volui! Gratias tibi ago! --Robert.Baruch 02:29, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategorization by US counties, and general issues of cataloguing[fontem recensere]

I just wanted to raise this -- I won't comment myself because Iacobus and I disagree about the development of categories. Iacobus is beginning to subcategorize by US counties, e.g.

Since this level of categorization hasn't as yet been discussed, and maintaining categories takes time from other necessary tasks, and these examples imply a large structure yet to come, and we are few, it would be good to have consensus before Iacobus himself puts in any more work. Do any other editors have a comment --

1. on whether this level of subcategorization by US counties is practical and useful at this stage of our development Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that one of the (two!) basic functions of categorization is to help editors determine where further work is needed, subcategorization at the lowest levels possible is both practical and useful. A category containing just one example—or even no examples at all—can spur further effort. IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. on whether the form of these category names is ideal? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those who don't know: my position—and let's state it as baldly as possible!—is that, to the extent that translation can allow, categories should match those of Wikipedia exactly, 100%, to the letter, without any variance whatsoever. § The most important rationale is that Wikipedia's system, being the result of cogitation by many orders of magnitude more human minds than have categorized Vicipaedia (and probably by one or two orders of magnitude more than have categorized the next-bigger wikis), is likeliest to be the most useful for humans at the present time. (The situation may change within decades, when human bodies & machines have melded more thoroughly.) For the value of this point, see Wisdom of the crowd. § A more practical rationale is that such a standard can by followed, without thinking, by anybody, whereas the precise details of Vicipaedia's system as it now stands are unpredictable by all except perhaps one person. Compared with Wikipedia's system, Vicipaedia's is quirkier. § A second practical rationale is that following Wikipedia's system will reduce human effort in the long run. For example, Alex1011 has just today assembled some battles under the category Obsidiones, and that's a fine start; however, that work will eventually be undone, as someone, someday, will almost certainly move Obsidio Vicksburgi to the category Obsidiones Belli Civilis Americani (there being more than ten such recognized sieges); similarly, other sieges will eventually gain more-precise sortings. § A third practical rationale, as VP:CAT implies, is that adding blank (red) categories to articles can spur the growth of the project: "Categories also indicate to editors pages that are currently lacking. For example, the category Auctores Anglici (on 2 Novembris 2010) has no member Iohannes Masefield. So (unless there already is a page on Masefield that is not properly categorised) that page could now be created." Ergo, seeing a red category at the bottom of an article may give a potential contributor ideas about new articles to write. That is most definitely what has occurred at my desk during the past week, as red categories, pertinently imported from Wikipedia, have shown how attentuated Vicipaedia's coverage of geography is. Diligent editors will fight the false security of blue! ¶ In part, this is a debate about lumping and splitting. In some applications, the most fruitful procedure may lie somewhere between extreme lumping and extreme splitting, but in an enterprise that, like Vicipaedia, will become more complex over time, history will be on the side of splitting, and every new split will turn every previous lump into waste. Why not embrace & enable the future, instead of resisting & hindering it? IacobusAmor 13:26, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, since you set out your philosophy, I'll set out mine: the category structure should grow in response to the increase in our pages, so as to form the best possible guide to them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That ignores one of the (two!) basic functions of categories: to guide & inspire further growth. It's fine to look backward so as to accommodate the past, but one might hope it were obvious that looking forward is a good idea too. IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our categories are and should continue to be suited to Latin and to Vicipaedia, not calqued on any foreign wiki -- English least of all! Latin is a better medium than English; that's why I'm here.
Latinizantibus veniam peto ob disputationem Anglice inceptam (a principio enim de re Americana sententias postulavi). Linguam Latinam, aliis omnibus praecellentem, idoneam censeo ad scientias explicandas et ordinandas; ob hanc rationem hic laboro. Arborem igitur categoriarum e paginis nostris graduatim crescentibus evolvendam suadeo, neque ex imitatione aliae Wikipediae cuiusdam (immensae, minime universalis). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then since categories must reflect only the past (the material that has been written), and since no one except you can fully comprehend the system as it has reached the present, the most natural future accommodation of your attitudes & actions will be to use Categoria:Omnia and let you refine the details. You'll find a couple of articles already there, awaiting your ministration. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 14:29, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the one hand, I agree with Iacobus that our category system should match the English category system, for pretty much the same reason: wisdom of the crowds, and also the English wiki has the most articles that need the most categorization, and so has the richest categorization. On the other hand, copying it over will result in a lot of redlink categories. --Robert.Baruch 15:44, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redlink categories are a feature, not a bug. They can help editors plan. IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories aren't used for future planning on other wikipedias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC
Categories have been used for future planning in Vicipaedia. At least one Vicipaedian has added dozens of articles on the basis of gaps found in the category system. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are strong reasons for this, the major one being that work done by any editor on pages (including project pages) is highly likely to survive. Even if edited out of the current version of a page, it survives in the history. Work done by any editor on categories is ephemeral, likely to be deleted and lost (witness the large number of categories deleted, week by week, at en:wiki). This is a feature of the wiki structure with which we have to work. Planning is therefore better done in other ways. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's inappropriate to characterize the current invention of categories in the big wikis as being relevant to the current invention of categories in Vicipaedia. At the present rate of increase in Vicipaedia, the English wiki is more than 200 years ahead: its present is Vicipaedia's distant future. The categorization of the current Vicipaedia is more like the categorization of the English wikipedia in 2001–2002. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My idea had been that if I needed a category for an article already written, I would generate that category and all supercategories up to the root category, according to the English wiki. That would result in no redlinked categories, because there is at least one page for the chain of categories. --Robert.Baruch 15:44, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a reasonable approach. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This morning, as it happens, I can give an example showing why this might be an unwise method ... I created the category Categoria:Aves Insularum Faeroarum, which was demanding to be created, and, to justify it, I further created the category Categoria:Insulae Faeroae. While interwiki-linking them, I thought I would see how many steps it would take to get from one to the other on en:wiki; because, after all, a user might want to do just this. Someone reading about a Faeroe Island bird might want to see what other stuff en:wiki has or doesn't have about the islands; someone reading about the islands might look to see what stuff they have or don't have about the wildlife.
Well, I tried hard, and I still don't know what steps to follow to get quickly from en:Category:Birds of the Faroe Islands to en:Category:Faroe Islands or vice versa. Here's a challenge for anyone who wants to take it: what is the quickest way from the one category to the other on en:wiki? Having taken the challenge, come back and let's discuss whether that crowd has created a structure that's really handy to readers of Wikipedia :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The obvious answer is, en:Category:Birds of the Faroe Islands should at some point in the hierarchy be categorized into en:Category:Faroe Islands, probably at en:Category:Biota of the Faroe Islands. That's just a gap in the en: category hierarchy, which I have corrected. --Robert.Baruch 16:53, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you can, of course (and the obvious answer that Iacobus gives below is also valid, and a third obvious answer, to go by way of the Hungarian or Latin Wikipedias, is also valid). It's still odd, though, isn't it, that the English crowd was so fixated on its classificatory hierarchy that it never noticed this so-relevant and so-apparently-obvious connection. That's why my warning remains as valid as these various answers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, uh... score one for us? --Robert.Baruch 22:08, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, you want a score? Your obvious answer took (I estimate) 30 keystrokes and 8 clicks, if you marked your edit as minor and didn't write anything in the summary. Iacobus's obvious answer took maybe 8 clicks to look for a route in the category tree and return to start, 1 click, a couple seconds search in the text, 1 click, scroll, 1 more click. My obvious answer (via Hungarian) took 8 clicks to look for a route in the category tree and return to start, then 1 click, 1 scroll, 2 clicks. By my count, I win, but I admit it's a photo finish and Iacobus might win on appeal! Now, if you want a real challenge, take the en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Derby/Multilingual Challenge‎‎ -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 2 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be an interesting question if the answer weren't obvious: one would bypass the categories and go directly to Faroe Islands. ¶ However, it points up a fundamental problem with the categories: the system is set up on a vertical (hierarchical) dimension, but sideways (horizontal) searching is as yet impossible or inconvenient. This problem will surely be solved by technology that'll readily permit searches in multiple categories at once, and perhaps technology that'll search up & down the category trees. (That technology will be defeated by deletion of lowest-level categories and categories in the middle of the hierarchical chain [on the grounds that there'd be "too many steps"], but that's a separate issue). The problem could have been solved manually by a tagging system like the one used to classify my digital files of photos & scans: if one wants to find photos of my brother's third child having dessert in a restaurant, one searches for "1c Br Fd," where 1c = the brother's third child (the alphanumeric signs of all family members are easily deducible as tweaks of an Ahnentafel), Br = "Building, restaurant," and Fd = "Food, dessert"; if one wants to find a scan of a photo of a blooming violet published in a newspaper, one searches for "Np, Pf Viola," where Np = "Newspaper, photograph," "Pf" = "Plant, flower," and "Viola" is the genus (omitting the Pf would enable nonblooming violet plants to turn up). In such a system, en:Category:Birds of the Faroe Islands would stand side by side (at the bottom of the page) with en:Category:Faroe Islands—and of course with en:Category:Birds and en:Category:Islands. For ease of use, searching would want to be implemented via something like a "quaerere inter categorias" box, perhaps to be placed just below the "quaerere" box, which itself might then want to be renamed "quaerere inter commentarios" or something to that effect. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that we should not copy what other wikis do, just because we are part of the whole wiki system. I think that considering the nature of wikipedia itself it is possible to give certain flavour to each wiki, rather than several copies of the same thing.--Xaverius 15:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it might be desirable to "intensify the flavour of Vicipaedia." Yours truly once made that argument, but the consensus then was that that would be a Bad Thing Indeed. How do we know? Because it's Vicipaedia's policy not to allow images to be uploaded to Vicipaedia. When this issue was last discussed, the point was made (perhaps by UV) that uploading images to the commons is a Good Thing, because it allows all wikis to use those images, thereby enabling those wikis to be (visually) more similar to each other. Uploading images in such a way that they could be used only in Vicipaedia was held to be a Bad Thing, because it would deprive the other wikis of using the very material that would "intensify the flavour" of Vicipaedia. ¶ It's not inconceivable that the policy of disintensifying local flavor diminishes the public estimation of Vicipaedia. Over in Meta, on a page that ranks the wikis by numbers of articles, registered users, edits, etc., you'll find a tabulation of the number of images uniquely held in each wiki. Vicipaedia has exactly one image (the logo), and it thereby ranks down there at the bottom, below wikis that have fewer than 1000 articles, like Tsonga, Chamorro, Sesotho, Tswana, Kikuyu, Tahitian, and Bambara, and below even the wikis that have fewer than 100 articles: Choctaw, Marshallese, Sichuan Yi, and Twi. Visually, in the use of images, Vicipaedia is about as indistinguishable from the big wikis as it's possible to be, and in a way that highlights Vicipaedia's present inadequacy: all but one of its images are found elsewhere, but most of the images found elsewhere are not found in it. So much, mi Xaveri, for your desire to "intensify the flavour of Vicipaedia"! IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving that aside, and focusing on this issue. All those highly-detailed categories will be useful at some point, but at the moment, I feel they could be rather confusing. Wouldn't it be more logical to expand categories as more articles belonging to them are created? I mean, I've got nothing against having categories for geographical features of each US county, although considering the amount of articles in each of them, wouldn't it be sensible to simply group them in geographical features by state rather than by county? At this stage I do not think that level of precission is useful..--Xaverius 15:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you too deny that a basic function of categorization is to help editors determine where further work is needed? Just checking. ;) IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plus, and this is more my opinion, I find that having 12 categories for a single article is not that helpful... en:Oxford has 11 categories, several of which I feel overlap.--Xaverius 15:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have repeatedly stated my view that we should avoid too many cross-categories. (Non-empty) county categories are fine, but I would suggest not to subdivide county categories by rivers, buildings, inhabitants, mountains, etc. Instead, we should put those articles both in the county category and in the appropriate category for rivers or buildings.
I have also repeatedly stated my view that we should not follow en.wikipedia (or any other language edition of wikipedia) slavishly. In my view, the category system of en.wikipedia in particular has several flaws. ¶ Wisdom of the crowd? Very many people in the world do smoke tobacco, and I am convinced that it is not a valid conclusion to say that it is a wise thing to smoke tobacco, just because there is a large crowd of people that do so. --UV 23:23, 27 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Experience teaches that arguments from anecdote, though they can have large rhetorical effects, especially among the uninformed and the unable, usually afford only small rational benefits. IacobusAmor 12:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious Categories[fontem recensere]

Speaking of categories, I found a few that I take issue with. Can someone explain the choice of wording?

For 'arranged by', the system we inherited seems to have used digerere instead of ordinare. IacobusAmor 01:14, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it will help for Brother Andrew to explain his distinction between, for example, Categoria:Auctores Anglici and Categoria:Scriptores Angliae. IacobusAmor 01:14, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a distinction that was discussed and agreed, quite a long time ago now (and please drop the Brother, Iacobe! I really dislike it). By convention we use "Auctores" for the series of categories subdivided by language, and "Scriptores" for the series subdivided by geographical origin and by speciality. Thus "Auctores Anglici" authors in English, "Scriptores Civitatum Foederatarum" writers of the United States, "Scriptores librorum puerilium" writers of books for children. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, I just made a bunch of categories not realizing that the above categories existed:

--Robert.Baruch 22:00, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been much discussion about whether to subdivide in detail by place of origin in this way. I would suggest you don't work hard at it until UV has commented. He believes (and I believe this too, but he is really the deep thinker on this issue) that it is easier, and a great saver of housekeeping time, if users are encouraged to use CatScan to combine categorisations such as by place, by language and by speciality. This is what happens on the German Wikipedia.
"libri pueriles" seems all right to me: cf. e.g. Quintilian, "doctrina puerilis" junior education, the teaching of children. I don't honestly think that "scriptores liberis" makes sense. But others may disagree! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted the ones you indicated above. It's worth noting that in categories we don't use "Americani" for "people of the United States" because of the ambiguity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Americanus is a fair example of the potential imprecision that our anonymous reptiliarius was introducing by adjectivizing the geographical parts of categories: in the interest of precision, the form that he'd eventually have had to have hit upon would have been (the shudder-producing) Statiunitensis. IacobusAmor 12:15, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the secundum civitates... couldn't that "secundum" mean "according to"?--Xaverius 23:51, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, but the sense that I got of secundum meaning according to follows that up with an authority, thus meaning in agreement with. According to this book, according to that doctor, according to me, and so on. I don't think you can use an abstract noun and keep the same English sense, which leads me to believe that maybe the Latin secundum doesn't have the sense of ordering according to some criterion. At least, I could not find that sense attested to in either L&S or Traupman. --Robert.Baruch 00:09, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cassell's: secundum = "'according to, in accordance with' : secundum naturam vivere, Cic."? IacobusAmor 01:14, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe we've been using also a simple ablative... civitate digesta (Gastronomia, Reptilia, Flumina, etc)--Xaverius 00:33, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the plain ablative was introduced (by Iacobus I think) after some of those older categories had been created. I am sure the plain ablative is better and neater. The ones using "secundum" could be renamed; it's just that no one's bothered to do so yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way we maintain categories (currently, yes, I'm the one who does most of it) is very similar to the way it's done on other wikis, though more easy-going than some of them. The current guidelines are at VP:CAT, and like nearly everything on every wiki they can be discussed and changed! The basic aim -- the basic purpose of categories, here as well as on English Wikipedia and on all the others -- is to present sets of related pages to users, and in this way to bring more users to our pages.
The current guidelines most worth remembering are (a) "A new category (unless it clearly belongs to an established set) should have, or soon acquire, at least four members"; and (b) "if you want to introduce a new range of categories, get consensus first for the idea and for the naming style".
I maintain categories partly by watching new pages, especially those of editors not very familiar with wikis, and adding relevant categories wherever I can [of course, other editors do this too]; partly by looking through the list of redlink categories (the ones that people have imagined but not created). What I then do is
  1. create the needed new categories that belong to an established pattern, or that will have at least two/three members;
  2. bring together by serendipity the ones that turn out to be the same topic hiding under several names, and create them too;
  3. visit and gently curse the pages that have recalcitrant one-member redlink categories. After they have languished some weeks, and it's clear that no one is still working in that area, I will try to replace some redlink categories with suitable existing categories. That's not always possible of course; currently there are about 700 redlink categories, and there will always be some comparable number of them, I guess.
I don't go looking for new categories that have just a single member page, but sometimes, in the course of this work, I encounter them. If I think they've been created without discussion, and don't seem to correspond to an existing pattern, and don't seem likely to fill up with more members soon, I might well add the tag {{Inops}} to them. This is a bit like marking a page {{Non stipula}}.
Anyone can avoid these attentions of mine (or, looking at it another way, anyone can make my work lighter!) by thinking of at least four (or even three or two ... please ... pretty please ... ) pages that would fit into any new category, rather than leaving it at one. (I should add that the first time I added a category to the Catalan wiki, I was told firmly that it would need at least 15 members within a week. That's why I say we are more easy-going than some!) As with a "Non stipula" page, anyone can rescue an "Inops" category, just by adding that category on a couple more pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why subdivide authors of children's books by nationality? Why not just create a category for "authors of children's books" and add a second author-by nationality category? --UV 23:26, 27 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the suggested categories exist, and the author concerned is now in them, I've deleted the others. Hope that's OK. Robert, if you still don't agree with the terminology of Categoria:Scriptores librorum puerilium, maybe discuss it at the category talk page?
There may well be value in a category of "writers of books for adolescents" -- but let's decide how to say that. The dative/ablative can have so many meanings! A reader won't necessarily understand that a writer intended the meaning "for". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quaestiones minores[fontem recensere]

¶, amice reptiliarie, ecce definitiones nominis Tethyshadros:

Quod primum scripsisti: "Tethyshadros insularis (m.) est secundum Dinosaurium in Italia repertum (primum Scipionyx, tertium "Saltriosaurus")."
Italice: "l tetisadro (Tethyshadros insularis) è un dinosauro erbivoro, appartenente agli ornitopodi."
Anglice: "Tethyshadros is a genus of hadrosauroid dinosaur from Italy."
Quod scripsi" "Tethyshadros insularis (m.) est typus generis Tethyshadros, hadrosauroideum Dinosaurium, secundum in Italia repertum (primum Scipionyx, tertium "Saltriosaurus")."
Quod nunc scripsisti: "Tethyshadros insularis (m.) est Dinosaurium secundum in Italia repertum (primum Scipionyx, tertium "Saltriosaurus")."

So the most important fact is that it's the second dinosaur found in Italy? + If it's really an herbivore, that fact should probably be in the definition.
¶ Item: etiam commutavisti "Mari Tethyde" ad "mari Tethydis." Revera: Tethydis est ablativus singularis?
¶ Item: pro "cetera animalia," dixisti "cetera Animalia." Cur haec littera magna?
¶ Item: pro "Etymologia" scripsisti "Derivatio nominis." Ut videtur, secundum Cassell's derivatio Anglice significat 'a turning away or diversion of water'. Quid significationem in animo habuisti? IacobusAmor 14:33, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auxilium peto[fontem recensere]

I have written the article Loom but so far it hasn't received any feedback. Please check, correct and improve :) Lusor 17:46, 21 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illud Escherichium aut llla Escherichia?[fontem recensere]

Secundum hoc [15] est bacterium Escherichium nec Escherichia, gen. Escherichiae. --Alex1011 08:24, 25 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etiam Yersinium pestis loco Yersiniae pestis [16]. --Alex1011 11:14, 25 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot me?[fontem recensere]

Can some kind admin declare me a local bot? My programmer has done botwork on la previously (the asteroids), and would like to formalize the relationship, which I understand is legal almost everywhere except in Arizona. --Robert.Baruch.Bot 14:58, 26 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's usually UV who does this, and I don't know exactly how. Does any other admin know? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 26 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only a grapheocrates can do this: I've asked Usor:Adam Episcopus to grant the bot flag to your bot. --Aylin 16:00, 27 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acknowledging translations[fontem recensere]

I think that when one of our pages consists of or incorporates a translation from another wiki, we should acknowledge the fact, just as other wikipedias now do. By failing to do this we could be breaking the CC License rules. Do others agree? If so, would the formula I have drafted at {{Versio}} serve the purpose, or (more likely!) can it be improved? It could be placed at the foot of any translated page, or maybe in the "Nexus externi" section. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this imply that we have to add this to all the pages of which we have been making translations? Or does this only apply from now on?--Xaverius 14:39, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a good idea, and the formula looks reasonable to me. I'm not sure it's necessary to go back and add it retrospectively, though. A. Mahoney 15:55, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, my feeling is that the breach of license was not a very grave issue. We are all working on the same Wikimedia site, and the transfer of information from one page to another may be regarded as a normal part of our activity, and subsequent editing in any case turns what was once a straight copy gradually into a new work. But, since the cross-wiki consensus is that it is proper to acknowledge the copying and translation -- thus maintaining the traceability of individual contributions -- we should go with the consensus from now on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Behold what can happen to the proposed kind of sourcing when the writeups in all the wikis are spotty: ecce notae in commentario Anemone blanda descriptae! IacobusAmor 13:14, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who has proposed that kind of sourcing? I removed the notes -- sorry, I hadn't seen this comment and when viewed without explanation they looked a bit childish -- but they can still be seen via this permanent link.
Oh, I get it -- "or incorporates". OK, OK, if I need to clarify, I am proposing acknowledging the copying or translation of a whole article or an extended passage of text. And doing it by means of a template, not footnotes: normally one doesn't footnote other wikipedia articles because "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Please note, this isn't a new idea, the more efficient wikis are already doing it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When translating an article from another wikipedia, it is legally required to attribute the original text to the original authors. On the different ways how this can be done, see en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. --UV 21:15, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On "it is legally required to attribute the original text to the original authors." Presumably the purpose here would be to specify the thread, not to give "credit" (in any sense of acknowledgment of worth) to the original author. Vicipaedia probably has articles whose original text consisted of seven words, three or four of them grammatically false, to which later authors have added hundreds or even thousands of words, so obliterating the original text that its only surviving unchanged & unmoved word is the lemma. For many articles (one suspects), so much interwiki cross-fertilization has occurred that the list of interwiki links may be the most accurate way of sourcing the content. IacobusAmor 11:19, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right: a reference to the article history is the best way (probably the only practical way in wikicircumstances) of acknowledging authors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your {{Versio}}, but I would suggest not to put it into the article, but rather into the article's talk page. We might consider to add a sentence to this template that explicitly mentions attribution and/or authors. We might also adapt {{Versio}} along the lines of en:Template:Translated page or de:Template:Übersetzung.
On the rare occasions when I translate material from another wikipedia, I personally prefer not to use a template in the talk page, but instead to use an edit summary like "translated from en:Original article, see the page history there for attribution to authors". --UV 21:15, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you address the borrowing of content from multiple wikis? See the original version of Anemone blanda, an article created partly to illustrate this problem. As the original footnotes indicated, the definition basically comes from the English wiki, but the addition of the Caucasus is found only in the German and Swedish wikis. (For purposes of discussion, one has to ignore the Arabic & Azerbaijani versions, as they can't be read at this desk, but certainly the latter has such little content that it can safely be ignored here, whatever it says; the former seems to have more information.) The generalization that the plant usually prefers mountainous terrain is found in the Swedish wiki. The characterization of "pineta, dumeta, et agri saxosi" and the measurements in meters are found only in the German wiki. The specification of the months March through May is found only in the French wiki; one hadn't initially noticed that the plant flowers in March & April (but not May) in Dutch. The fact that the fruit is an achene is found only in the Dutch wiki.
(Facts too hazy to be incorporated into the text are that the plant grows 10–12 cm high in Dutch, but 7–25 cm high in German, and that the flowers have about 15 petals in French, 12–15 petals in German, and 11–15 petals in Swedish.)
For this article, and perhaps in similar cases, this problem will diminish over time, as someone will someday go to the original (Latin) description and provide a fuller account. Given the importance of this plant in horticultural commerce (it's probably been listed in every major U.S. catalogue of plants for hobbyists that one has consulted for the past twenty years), the brevity of articles about it in all the wikis is surprising, and the fact that the text of the English article still consists of just one sentence is stunning. That's more usually the fate of species that almost nobody has ever heard of. IacobusAmor 11:07, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My quick view (maybe others will differ) is that it is normal in factual writing to bring together information from many sources. An uncontroversial fact, adopted from some previous author but that all previous authors might well have mentioned, doesn't need specific acknowledgement. Never did, never will. That really has nothing to do with copyright and the CC license.
The issue here is with making an exact copy or translation of an extended text (e.g. a whole encyclopedia article). That activity requires us to obey the rules of copyright or (in this case) of the CC license. We on Vicipaedia have been omitting to do this, and we must begin to do the proper thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for that view: it seems that this is a legal requirement which we much somehow fulfil.
I will work on adapting that German formula and bring the results back to the Taberna. Like you, I hardly ever translate from another wikipedia (except when I'm adding my own stuff in more than one language) but some other editors do this often, notably Iacobus, and I'm conscious that this must cause as little waste of editors' time as humanly possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just testing, I've added {{versio|:eu:Gipuzkera|Vasconicae}} in dialectus Ipuscoana, but if it is better to put it in the disputatio, it can be moved.--Xaverius 11:06, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparing versions[fontem recensere]

It might be useful to look at interwiki sourcing in an article that's new wherever it appears. I created Halicephalobus mephisto‎ about an hour ago, acknowledging the source in the summarium as "(Ex :en:)." The original article (as one might expect), appeared in the English wiki, created on 1 June at 17:03. Next came the Dutch wiki, on 3 June at 15:23, but it has only a reduced text and makes no acknowledgement, though its source is almost certainly the English wiki. Next came the Greek wiki, on 3 June at 15:55; it makes a double acknowledgment: first in the summarium, as "(Νέο, μτφρ en:Halicephalobus mephisto)," and then with this announcement, highlighted in a box at the bottom of the text (with a tiny logo, not reproduced here): "Στο άρθρο αυτό έχει ενσωματωθεί κείμενο από το άρθρο Halicephalobus mephisto της Αγγλόγλωσσης Βικιπαίδειας, η οποία διανέμεται υπό την GNU FDL και την CC-BY-SA 3.0. (ιστορικό/συντάκτες)." Finally (so far), came the Spanish wiki, on 3 June at 22:08; it followed the summarium strategy, albeit more fulsomely than was done here: "(Creo el artículo. Traducido de en:Halicephalobus mephisto, exactamente la versión, bajo licencia GFDL y CC-CI 3.0)." That exactamente is interesting, in that it may be signaling that the Spanish content (like the content of the Greek and Latin versions) is entirely, sentence for sentence, the same as in the English. So: is the Greek method too much? and is the Dutch method too little? or is not giving an acknowledgment OK if the contents of an original are being drastically reduced? IacobusAmor 14:36, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting comparison. As a very quick response, I'd say the Dutch is not relevant, because this is about making an exact translation of an extended piece of text, e.g. a whole article. They didn't do that.
Yes, we may choose the summarium method or the template method. I'd suggest it's best if we make a firm choice, so that we will know where to look for the information if the question afterwards arises. Whichever method we use, it'll be wise to include a mention of the history page of the original article, because that's where the information about authorship is to be found: it is authorship that we are required in some way to acknowledge. The template method has the advantage that it gives us a formula to fill with the essential data.
The essential data (I think) are (1) language of origin; (2) title of original; (3) date and time of translation (we could perhaps use ~~~~ for this). Or else (1) language of origin; (2) title of original; (3) permanent URL of exact version used. In either case, if we use a template, it can add standard text naming the license and mentioning the history page of the original ...
But, continuing to think about it, if we use the summarium, we don't need to note the date and time; it's done for us. Perhaps this makes the summarium method simpler? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, a point against embedding a notice in the text is that, over time, two once-identical (in content) articles may diverge, so the notice would become increasingly "historical." To continue being true, its meaning would have to be that "once upon a time, the content of this text corresponded with that of wiki X"; but, for most readers, that would be mere clutter: therefore, if the embedding method were used, this notice might want to do the opposite of catch the casual reader's eye. Maybe it could be set in tiny type, footnotelike. Or maybe it could just be <!--hidden-->. IacobusAmor 17:14, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see. Good point, the information becomes increasingly 'academic'. We need to obey the rule while not catching the reader's eye ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:51, 4 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tuum est laridum curare."[fontem recensere]

Hello everyone. I'm reading Harry Potter in Latin and I came across this sentence. (To give some context, Aunt Petunia tells Harry, "Festina modo. Tuum est laridum curare. Cave ne illud torreas.") I don't understand the use of the infinitive here - from what I know of Latin, it seems to me it should be "tibi est laridum curandum." If anyone could help me out, I'd greatly appreciate it! Mattie 19:34, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a subcase of possessive constructions; formally, "POSS + infinitive", where POSS is either a noun in genitive or a possessive pronoun in neutrum singulare; e.g.,
regis est imperare ('it's a king's duty to rule');
tuum est imperare ('it's your duty to rule').
The meaning of the construction depends somewhat on context: given a suitable context, these sentences may also mean 'it's characteristic of a king / you to rule'. Neander 20:40, 28 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah oui, ça a du sens. Je me souviens d'avoir lu sur la formule avec le génitif, mais je ne connaissais pas celle avec le pronom possessif. Merci, Neander ! :) Mattie 22:56, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visibility of our Paginae Mensis[fontem recensere]

I have just noticed (and tried to fix), but it seems that in many wikis our paginae mensis are not getting a little star on the left bar, next to the link to the la:wiki article. People coming to our vici will see which on our pagina mensis is, but people in other wikis will not, unless we make sure to have the little star next to the link. Is there a way to fix this? Can an inter-wiki bot be instructed to add a {{FA star|la}} in the inter-wiki links linking to our pages which have a {{FA stella}}?--Xaverius 08:59, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems we have to wait until de:User:Guandalug has finished rewriting his User:LinkFA-Bot: de:Benutzer Diskussion:Guandalug#Link FA bot. --UV 22:16, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will wait then!--Xaverius 22:24, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student Project[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I've been way from Vicipaedia for a long time now. The last few months I've been teaching first- and second-year Latin at Western Washington University, for a temporary job which ends in a few days. I assigned my second-years as a final project to write material for us, either by writing or expanding an article. I announced this project by email to the rest of the magistratus a while back, but despite their implicit suggestion that I do so, I haven't announced it on the Taberna. Until the quarter ends, on Friday, June 10th, I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid substantive edits to their content text—please suggest changes on the talk page instead. To encourage this, we'll be marking the pages {{in progressu}}. --Iustinus 07:06, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should clarify that despite worrying about edits, I *definitely* want to encourage the posting of corrections, comments, and suggestions on the talk pages.
And now I see Xavierius would like us to use the scriptorium. Sorry I missed that before posting here. --Iustinus 07:26, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Xaverius that this seems a good use for the scriptorium. But "In progressu" alone should also work fine. I think it's entirely up to you and your students. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very sorry if I rushed in using the {{movenda ad scriptorium}}. It can obviously be reverted any time.
And in one of the pages I just added the categories, the inerwiki links and the lemma. I hope you're ok with this.--Xaverius 09:31, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem on either edit. I gave my students the option to use the scriptorium instead, but it sounded like most of them were not terribly interested... so I guess most of them who post on their own will be using {{in progressu}} instead. The only thing that irritated me, as I said, was that I had been unaware that usor:Daniella posted, until I saw that Tonsus Romanus was a blue link, so I proceeded with my announcement totally unaware that you had made that suggestion. As for the second edit, all you did was add categories and change capitalization, which is totally OK. We just wanted people to avoid major substantive edits, and give the students a few days at least to add wikilinks.
Daniella says she's about ready to go from {{in progressu}} to {{tiro}}, at which point it will be open season. Others may do so as well before the deadline. As of friday the quarter ends, so unless one of them objects I will be switching them all to {{tiro}} at that point.
--Iustinus 16:30, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One might ask her why she restored some infelicities. IacobusAmor 16:35, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't even know what you mean here. Daniella hasn't had any removed infelicities to restore, so I gather you must mean the work on Rebecca's cuniculus#Cuniculi cultura. In which case you should ask me, as I was the one who did the "compromise edit" last night. Go to the disputatio page and ask specific questions. --Iustinus 17:12, 5 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it's now the deadline. Since I'm still waiting on several articles, I guess I won't be enforcing it. But in the meantime I'm opening up most of the articles. They'll be watching, so please be nice! --Iustinus 07:18, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commentationes[fontem recensere]

To be clear, here is a (partial) list of the articles, to be updated as things change:

Proscriptae et apertae[fontem recensere]

Iam proscriptae[fontem recensere]

Nondum proscriptae[fontem recensere]

Terminologia: folklorist &c.[fontem recensere]

Quomodo oportet Latine vertere Ang. "Folklorists" (i.e. qui traditionibus popularibus student)? Paginam adhuc non habemus, sed necesse est categoriam creare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si folklore est scientia popularis, fortasse qui scientiae populari stude(a)nt ? vel simpliciter folkloristae ? IacobusAmor 10:57, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum LRL: folclore gentilicii mores, m pl. Syn: laographia; e Graec. laos = gens, populus et grapho = describo. folclorista gentiliciorum morum studiosus. m. Syn: laographus; laologus. --Robert.Baruch 15:31, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the name of the newsletter of the International Greek Folklore Society is Laographia :) --Robert.Baruch 15:34, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Lexicon Recentioris Latinitatis?] Thanks, that offers at least two possibilities, "Laographi" and "Folcloristae" (yes, some other languages have also substituted a c for a k in this word). Any other comments/preferences? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the Lexicon Recentioris Latinitatis. folclore and folclorista are Italian terms. Not sure where you sourced Latin folcloristae... --Robert.Baruch 18:38, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A misunderstanding. Not immediately knowing what you meant by LRL, it didn't strike me that there was Italian in your quotation along with the Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Morgan sane proponit hoc folk- vertendum esse verbo quod est vernaculus -a -um, et mentionem quoque facit "rustic(an)i," necnon "paganici." Exemplo dat "Bartok totam Hungariam perlustravit ad cantilenas vernaculas audiendas notisque excipiendas." :--Iustinus 18:30, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But one gets to vernaculus only by working backward from the modern idea of vernacular, rather than using the classical sense, 'of a slave born in the house, native, domestic'. Rustic- and pagan- have more promise. See below. IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dein Iosephus Ioannes del Col haec:
folclore: (conjunto de las tradiciones, creen- 
cias y costumbres de las clases populares)
gentilícii mores; peculiares pópuli mores //
(ciencia que estudia esas materias) demoló-
gia, ae f. Sin: demográphia; ethnográphia;
laográphia; sciéntia rerum populárium.

folclórico: demológicus, a, um. Sin: ethno-
gráphicus; ad laográphiam áttinens; ad genti-
lícios mores spectans.

folclorista: laógraphus vel laólogus, i m. Sin:
demólogus; gentiliciorum morum studiosus,
cultor, peritus. 
--Iustinus 18:30, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etiam, Petrus Australianus (qui Davidi auxilio esse desiderans etiam notas suas componebat) notat laographiam apud nostrates folklore significare, sed apud antiquos poll-tax. --Iustinus 18:33, 7 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So laographia is doubly false and best avoided for denoting the knowledge & ways known as 'folklore'. In general, ologies are studies of things, not the things themselves, and graphies are the written forms of the studies, again not the things themselves. So demographia is the study of people, not the people themselves, and is therefore best used to denote the discipline known as demography; and ethnographia is the study of ethnicity, not the ethnicity itself, and is therefore best used to denote the discipline known as ethnography; hence, laographia seems apt for the academic discipline of folklore, but inept for the lore itself. The suggestions gentilícii mores and peculiares pópuli mores and sciéntia rerum populárium are problematic in their own ways. IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly with regard to music, certain concepts might best be considered together, as a set, so that the most appropriate distinctions will emerge. Terms need to be available to handle the fourfold system proposed by Charles Seeger (slightly altered):
1. tribal / ethnic music (i.e., Navajo music) ← musica genticus / gentilicius / gentilis ?
2. folk music / traditional music (i.e., "Barbara Allen") ← musica rustica / pagana ? ¶ For 'folk' as an anthropological concept, rusticus & paganus have the advantage of offering a neat opposition to urbanus—an opposition potentially useful in accommodating the historical notion of the "folk–urban continuum," popularized by Robert Redfield and others, the point being that folk cultures can be analyzed as contrasting with city cultures, with both in a mutually interdependent relationship. Which would be better for this purpose? or would some other word be best? IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A complication: folk music is distinct from country music (i.e., Dolly Parton). Would one be rustica and the other pagana ? and if so, which would be which? IacobusAmor 12:48, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another complication: there's a thing called urban folk. Rustica urbana ?! IacobusAmor 12:48, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. popular music (i.e., The Beatles) ← musica popularis / populi ?
4. professional music (i.e., Beethoven) ← musica docta ?
Not to mention the implied contrast of the last listed with amateur music, as seen in Pete Seeger's self-description: "I have had to accept the label 'folksinger,' although 'a professional singer of amateur music' would be more accurate in my own case." IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, folk-related distinctions must be made among folk rock (rock rusticum ?), electric folk (rustica [scil. musica] electrica ?), folk metal (metallum rusticum ?), progressive folk (???), psychedelic folk (rustica psychedelica ?), freak folk (???), and neofolk (rustica nova ?). IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, a term is needed for the marketing label world music (musica mundi ?), adopted in the past few decades by corporate interests as a means of promoting their products. Related terms are needed for the (apparently distinct) concepts of world fusion, global fusion, ethnic fusion, worldbeat, and roots music. IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For lore, perhaps scientia is serviceable, though Cassell's gives eruditio, doctrina, and mores is tempting too, though it has disadvantages of its own. IacobusAmor 12:13, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an extremely useful survey. As to my initial question -- a name for the specialists in this field -- it seems that laographi may be OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, laographia 'folklore' (the discipline, not the study-object of the discipline) and laographus 'folklorist' begin to look useful. However, is it certain that the basic sense of lao absolutely excludes city-dwellers (as the desired term must)? ¶Fol(c,k)lorista may still be available as the term that will be the most readily recognizable by the largest numbers of readers. IacobusAmor 12:56, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a Latin source for "Fol(c,k)lorista"? I thought this was due to the Italian LRL (Lexicon Recentior Latinitatis) confusion mentioned above. Don't want to run afoul of NF. --Robert.Baruch 17:15, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why must it? The word "folk" doesn't exclude city-dwellers, does it? Don't let's fall for the etymological fallacy ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in anthropology, folklore, music, &c., the folk are not necessarily the Volk. IacobusAmor 14:04, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These concepts have been contested for decades now; but, for much of the twentieth century, scholars conveniently equated the folk with peasants. It was to the countryside, not the cities, that Cecil Sharpe, Béla Bartók, John & Alan Lomax, and others went to record folk-music. The opposition of "folk" and "urban" appealed to scholars on many levels. Redfield wrote: "Folk life, in contrast to civilized life [i.e., urban life], is one style of life, in spite of the very great specific cultural differences among precivilized or primitive societies. Peasantry, [N.B.] then, whether Mexican or Chinese or Polish, is that style of life which prevailed outside of the cities and yet within their influence during the long period between the urban revolution and the industrial revolution" (The Primitive World and Its Transformations, Ithaca, NY: 1953, p. 53). Bruno Nettl, a leading ethnomusigologist in the United States, maintained the contrast in his definition of folk music: "found in those cultures and areas in which there is also a longtime development of urban, professional, cultivated musical tradition" (Folk and Traditional Music of the Western Continents, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1973, p. 1). By the late twentieth century, the whole idea was under challenge. As Helen Myers breathlessly wrote: "gradually the term folk music in English-language usage began to be replaced by traditional music in order to highlight the broader spatial and temporal dimensions of the material rather than the social level at which it was vaguely thought to operate (communal) or the means by which it was exclusively transmitted (oral)" (Ethnomusicology, New York: Norton, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 218–219). Even though the concepts and their names remain in flux, and are perhaps becoming more & more confused, thanks to increased communication, terms are needed for the historical senses. IacobusAmor 14:58, 8 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to all, and I have created Categoria:Laographi. It isn't easy, because the word "folklorist" vel sim. is much more familiar internationally than "laographos"; on the other hand we have a source for "laographi", and Latin (si pro hac lingua loqui licet) is quite happy when adopting learned Greek words, less happy when borrowing an English word with a Graeco-Latin suffix. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 10 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vocabula desiderata[fontem recensere]

Scire velim si pagina in omni categoria Vicipaediae ad novissima vocabula desiderata inveniatur. Ut breviter dicam, velim scire quomodo quidvis novum vocabulum (desideratum) proponam.[usor:Vuott scripsit] --Vuott 22:49, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dico ego (alii fortasse aliter!):
  • si oportet paginam sub illo vocabulo creare (e.g. si de hac re nihil in Vicipaedia legimus) i, crea. Si fontem verbi Latini habes, cita. Si fontem reperire non potes, crea et exspecta! Alii vicipaediani aut pro aut contra vocabulum tuum locuturi sunt, et de ea disputatione vocabulum tuum aut recepturum aut mutaturum est. Pagina aut sub eodem vocabulo manebit, aut movebitur. Optime ...
  • si velis categoriam, nec paginam substantivam, creare, potes tempus tuum in subito creando perdere, quia categorias minime possumus movere. Oportet fortasse aut paginam respectivam antea creare et disputationem exspectare, aut hic in taberna vocabulum proponere.
  • si in textu paginae cuiusdam "neologismum" inserere velis, i, insere, et in pagina disputationis respectiva opiniones aliorum postula. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 10 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et semper potes formulam {{dubsig}} scribire iuxta verbum quod creavisti.--Xaverius 11:55, 10 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vobis dico multas gratias. Bene. --Vuott 22:45, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fortasse novam categoriam instituere oportet vicipaediam ad nova vocabula vel terminologiam indicandam?-- 14:50, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formulam {{convertimus}} habemus, qua uti possumus ut verbum neologismum sine fonte significare. Etiam haec formula paginam in Categoria:Appellationes conversae addit. --Robert.Baruch 14:15, 13 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index communium praefecturae Altae Sequanae aut Altarum Sequanarum aut?[fontem recensere]

Dear friends could you help me, I do not understand to which case Alta in Alta Sequanae belongs? Thank you--Helveticus montanus 18:25, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominativus. Itaque e.g. de urbibus vel de praefectura Altorum Sequanae scribendum est ThbdGrrd 18:48, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Précisément. Adnuente pagina VP:TNP, ego in linguam Latinam olim converti; tales versiones usque adhuc accipimus ... Ergo Index communium praefecturae Altorum Sequanae: haec est Latina "canina" (Nom + gen + gen + gen + gen) sed e consuetudinibus in serie paginarum iam statutis provenit. Aut Communia praefecturae Altorum Sequanae; aut Communia Altorum Sequanae ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 15 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linguistica an glottologia[fontem recensere]

Martinus cunctis sodalibus honorandissimis spd.

Illa pagina, quae nominatur linguistica, in apellationem glottologia permutanda est. "Linguistica" est vulgarium sermonum terminus technicus latino-graecus, quae rationibus grammaticis (-ista) infelicem esse videtur - invicem magis ea voce utamur, quae moribus Latini sermonis gravissime respondent. Maiores nostri antiqui ad artem linguarum "grammaticam" dixerunt, sed "grammatica" in huius aetatis thesauro vocabulorum iam scientiam inferiorem coangustitur. Ergo verbum "glottologiam" commendo, quae licet ex lingua graeca orta sit, multo rectiorem quam "linguistica" esse videtur. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 19:10, 18 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salvē, Martīne!
Certē valet ista probātiō - sed quīn fingāmus vōcem Latīnam tantum? In animō erat "scientiam atque studium linguārum" novum illīus pāginae titulum fore - Nī forsan "scientia atque studium" aliquem offendant. Sed mihi "Perseō probante" ( [17] (in capite) et [18] (sub II B.)) cōniūncta nōn nimis displicent ;-) /:-)
Optimē valē
                  • 01:22, 19 Iunii 2011 (UTC)ŪĒLN = Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs, quī Martīnō respondente gaudeat :-)

Dē longitūdinibus indicandīs aut nōn indicandīs[fontem recensere]

Salvēte, quaequīque hīc legitis atque scrībitis,

nōscere velim ā perītiōribus vestrum, num hīc umquam disputātum sit, num liceat in pāginīs "rērum" logitūdinēs indicāre (ut ego hāc in disputātiōne faciō)? Nam gaudeam scrībēns(exemplī grātiā):

  • "Numerī Māyōrum Indōrum Americae merīdiōnālis"1) :-)

Cum enim nōn saepe audiāmus verba Latīna -et rārius rēctīs quantitātibus- , quōmodō fīat, ut vōcālīs longās discāmus?

  • 1) pāginam "numerī" aliquantillum iam -sed cāsū tantum duōrum verbōrum- mūtāvī

Valēte! ******** 00:37, 19 Iunii 2011 (UTC)ŪĒLN = Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs

Salve, UELN. Quando tirones Vicipaediam leguntur et editantur, gaudemus; hic autem confecimus encyclopaediam non tironibus tantum, sed omnibus Latine lectoribus, destinatum. Tirones, libris scholasticis et lexicis utentes, aut macrones aut "accentos" saepissime vident, sed, cum textus generales sive e libraria sive e bibliotheca habent, talia signa non vident. Si enim linguam Latinam modo "fluenti" legere volunt, eis oportet orthographiam normalem macronibus carentem legere (et, si volunt, scribere). Apud Vicipaediam, sicut in textibus generalibus, id discere possunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 20 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salvē, Andrew! "quando...leguntur et editantur" "accentos" Ipsene tīrō es? Quod nōn malumst - et quī status ē "Latīnī" dēfīnītiōnis pendet :-) Gaudeō quidem tē respōndisse Latīnē :-)
Sed hoc mihi nōn appāret, cūr omnīnō scrīpseris dē "omnibus Latīnē lēctōribus", cum posteā dē tīrōnibus tantum scrībere pergis?
Accēdit, quod ne "omnēs" quidem "Latīnī tīrōnēs" multōs vident macrōnēs estne vōx "classica"? - in Germāniā, exemplī grātiā. ūnus tantum "liber scholasticus" mihi nōtus est, quī mācrōnibus in ipsīs textibus praeditus sit! Et stat causa mea cum tuā sententiā "Apud Vicipaediam, sicut in textibus generalibus, id discere possunt. " - cum in tot librīs scholasticīs longitūdēs nōn indicentur, nōnne aliō inigent locō, ubī illud -nempe longitūdinēs singulōrum verbōrum- discere possint? Sī velint facile legere textūs "immacrōnātōs", legant ēditiōnēs veterum! - Quid, cēterae cēterīque, vōs cēnsētis?
Valē(te)! Ūnus ē Latīnīs novīs 17:05, 24 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De gustibus non est disputandum. Egomet mallo sine accentibus, apicibus, macronibus scribere. Et videre potes quia ex longo hic fere omnes item mallunt. Quare me rogo: cur incassum rogas? Hoc agente tu nos a meliore labore nostro distringes.
De tironibus, Andreas nihil refert ad hanc disputationem nisi quod plures scriptores hic sunt tirones. Quaeso omnes apud nos rationaliter de rebus re vera disputandis disputare ne per commentationes inciviles de latinitatis erratis alios inflamare coneris. Vale. --Rafaelgarcia 18:22, 24 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... et re vera ego, sicut nos omnes, sum semper tiro ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:58, 24 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenit inter Vicipaedianos eandem scribendi consuetudinem sequi, qua plerique utuntur philologi classici nostrae aetatis. Constat hanc scriptionem non esse optimi generis; verum tamen usitatissima est atque inter antiquorum scriptorum editores usu recepta. Sunt qui scriptionem phonologicam praeferant solitae, quod rectum vocalium appellationem observare et docere velint. Quamquam hanc curam per se magni facio, tamen valde dubito, an hic sit locus huius officii. Puto enim Vicipaediae non esse linguam Latinam docere, sed potius variarum rerum notitias inter homines communicare et insuper hoc pacto linguae Latinae inter nationes honorem ac statum provehere. Quod ad te attinet, amice, non me fallit te optima Latinitate scribere scire. Itaque obsecro te: si quid insulsi in conatu nostro Vicipaediano inhaaerere sentias, quin defectus ignoscas aliisque vitiis condonatis nobis succurras symbolas de variis rebus conscripturus. Bene venias! Neander 10:01, 25 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De annalibus televisificis &c.[fontem recensere]

We have a series of annual categories for films (see for example Categoria:Pelliculae 1963). I think we need a similar series for television programmes. Would others agree? Is the title Categoria:Programmata televisifica 1963 OK as a model? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes! and yes! IacobusAmor 13:45, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 24 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another question. We don't seem to have a category corresponding to en:Category:Dependent territories or de:Kategorie:Abhängiges Gebiet. I think we need one (which would then be subdivided by continent). Are we to call it Categoria:Territoria subiecta, or is there a better term? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the queried use, the adjective subiectus offers the danger of having for its basic sense 'of places, lying near, adjacent.' The example in Cassell's: Heraclea, quae est subiecta Candaviae (Caesar). In Classical Latin (sez Cassell's), 'dependent on, subject to, exposed to' = obnoxius, which, happily, is going to confuse readers who cultivate no sense of style and rely on modern languages for their understanding of Latin. Livy: totam Graeciam beneficio libertatis obnoxiam Romanis, which one takes to be 'the whole of Greece, dependent on the Romans for the favor of freedom'. Ergo Categoria:Territoria obnoxia? IacobusAmor 13:45, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems a very close match for the required sense. Thank you. Any views from others? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 23 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so I have created it, and applied it so far to some territories in the Americas. I was trying to set up, in parallel with "Nationes ...", a set of categories for parts of the world that aren't politically nations but can't, geographically or politically, be considered uncomplicatedly as part of other nations. I may have failed, of course. Anyone interested, please look at the current contents of Categoria:Territoria obnoxia Americae, which is meant to parallel the existing Categoria:Nationes Americae.
Each territory has a category page of its own, which is a member of (a) "Categoria:Territoria obnoxia Americae" (for geography) and (b) "Categeoria:Imperium ..." (for politics). This is using Imperium in a classical sense: not a nation ruled by an emperor, but a range of territories under the supreme rule of a government. Questions: will this general system work in categorising parts of the world that are not politically nations? Is "territoria obnoxia" definitely OK? Is "imperium" OK? Tell me before I go any further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 24 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has objected, so I intend to start dealing with other continents similarly, trying to handle territories-that-are-not-independent-nations in a consistent way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 20 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usor (ut spero) novus[fontem recensere]

Modo omnibus dico meam amicam optimam Amaliam (ut spero!!!), quae rationem hic rationem abhinc annos iam fecit, moxmox apud nos scribere incepturam. Quaeso pulchre ne eam mordeatis! Si quid mali sit apud formatting, veniam detis, et demittite mihi omnia, si apud latinitatem procul dubio commentatiunculas modo constructivas date. Gratias!!! -- Ioscius 21:36, 27 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of the months[fontem recensere]

Dear Friends, some time ago somebody created a bot to correct all the wrong pages Mense Ianuarii or Mense Aprilis instead of the correct one Mense Ianuario or Mense Aprili (according to my grammar the name of the month is an adjective which follows the declension of the word month). I see now that there are a lot of of these misstakes especially in the pages dedicated to the years see 1964, could somebody please correct them with a bot again? Thank you--Helveticus montanus 19:30, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We discussed this two years ago: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 11#Mense Iunii aut Mense Iunio, ad mensem Iunium etc. Unless someone objects, I will have UVbot do these corrections again within the next few days. --UV 20:05, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think this is a good idea: it's lucky that it can be done automatically. My impression is that Schulz-Hameln has added many of these instances -- aiming to shorten the list of "paginae non annexae", an excellent idea -- but I think he will agree that "Mense Ianuario" etc. is preferable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:12, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, if I got it wrong, but I would think that the names of the months are also nouns. What I tried to say is "In the month of February (latine: genetivus) like "die 27 Februarii" = "on the 27th day of February". But I wouldn't could accept the ablative also. You'll often find the genetive in medieval texts, e.g.: 14:55, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are quite right, in wider Latin the genitive is fine. It's maybe preferable in such a prominent and widespread feature on Vicipaedia, visible on every year page, that we stick to the "classical" rule. I'm glad if you can accept this. And thanks, Schulz-Hameln, for linking in all these "orphan" pages! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grammar books indeed imply that phrases of the form mense Februario ('in the February month') is more classical, but current usage makes phrases of the form 18 Februarii 2011 acceptable where a clipped style is desirable. We don't use the classical world's Roman numerals for dates either, nor do we ground dates in the kalendae–nonae–idus system, with reference to A.U.C. IacobusAmor 12:13, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The abbreviation 18 Februarii 2011 stands for octavo decimo die mensis Februarii.... Although 18 Februarii 2011 is not the Roman way, it does obey Latin grammar where Februarius is an adjective not a noun. I think that is the important point.-- 15:31, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UVbot has done its work. It is possibly that UVbot missed some occurrences, but most occurrences should be changed now. --UV 20:48, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Antiquitate posteriore[fontem recensere]

Gratias ago omnibus ob auxilium ad causam paginae Antiquitatis Posterioris datum. Praecipue gratias ago Utiloni, Andreae atque Alex. Gratissimus nun sum cum pagina mihi cara, quam menses longos male scripsi. Valete --Xaverius 22:14, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E.T. domu telephonare vult[fontem recensere]

Sed... quomodo eum nominamus? Videte Disputatio:Extraterrestrial life. Gratias!--Xaverius 22:30, 30 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amabo te, cogitationem tuum indic et interes. Gratias ago.--Jondel 13:37, 1 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nexus extra Vicipaediam[fontem recensere]

Anonymous contributor has changed

[[Academia Linguae Melitensis|Academiae Linguae Melitensis]]<!--[[:en:Akkademja tal-Malti]]-->


[[:en:Akkademja tal-Malti|Academiae Linguae Melitensis]].

Is linking directly to articles in other wikis (outside the "Nexus externi" area, &c.) a good idea? Or should links within Vicipaedia's texts lead only to articles in Vicipaedia? IacobusAmor 12:00, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On what page has this happened? Can you provide a link? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops. Meant to add it, but got distracted: Franciscus Sammut. IacobusAmor 12:28, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't remember where this is laid down as a rule, but (speaking off the cuff) I think we accept appropriate external links in several suitable places (including "nexus externi", "bibliographia", article footnotes and infoboxes) but not in article text. If links that are otherwise appropriate appear in article text, they should be moved to nexus externi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe doesn't like the color red. IacobusAmor 12:28, 2 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In some cases, links to other wikis in the texts may be valid (e.g. "Bisbona (IPA: [biˈsboːna], Italiane: Bivona"), I think. I have made once a link to outside vici, but it was a link to a document in vicifons. I can change that if in-text external links are not appropriate.--Xaverius 10:30, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)