Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Index

Magazinae[fontem recensere]

Est nobis categoria pro magazinis? Debentne esse tales res? Habeo in mente Tempus (Anglice: Time), Vita (Anglice: Life), Nova Septimana (?) (Anglice: Newsweek), Mundus (Theodisce: Die Welt), Le Figaro, etc. Paginae disambiguationis quoque necesse erunt ; e.g, "Figaro (persona in operis musicis)" et "Figaro (magazina)". IacobusAmor 16:15, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)

(In part answering my own question) OK, video nobis esse "Categoria:Periodica." IacobusAmor 17:09, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Estne verbum Latinum pro "scriptoribus in magazinis et diariis" (Anglice journalists)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 20 Martii 2007 (UTC)
According to Traupman, Iohannes. [2003]. Colloquia Latine Exercito Orali, editio tertia (Anglice: Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency, Third Edition.). pp 326. Vauconda, IL: Editores Bolchazy-Carducci. ISBN 086516438X, jounalist = diurnarius; journal = commentarii periodici; jounalism = diunaria ars--Rafaelgarcia 15:05, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Rafael. I am one of those who haven't yet made Traupman's acquaintance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:16, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I just got my copy last week and presently reading it. It's pretty nice.--Rafaelgarcia 20:15, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Praemium[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Please vote: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Rafaelgarcia. --Rolandus 10:19, 17 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Summa Theologiae/Summa Theologica[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Disputatio:Summa Theologiae --Rolandus 15:18, 18 Martii 2007 (UTC)

"Nonprofit"[fontem recensere]

What's the best Latin rendering of Anglice nonprofit? Technically defined, the term is usually applied to corporations that do not operate for the purpose of making a profit ; at least under U.S. law, having the status of a nonprofit can drastically lower a corporation's taxes and may have other legal implications. The sense of the term is not at all the same as that of "not profitable." Any ideas ? (It would be useful to insert this idea into the article about Reticulum Avanta, a nonprofit corporation.) IacobusAmor 20:09, 18 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Societas quae laborat pro bono?--Ioshus (disp) 14:50, 20 Martii 2007 (UTC)
My instinct is that that's equivalent to 'not profitable', rather than 'nonprofit'. Work is done pro bono publico only by corporations that otherwise intend to make a profit. What's needed here is a rendering of 'nonprofit corporation', a corporation established so as not to make a profit—a concept that some readers may find hard to wrap their brains around ! IacobusAmor 15:27, 20 Martii 2007 (UTC)
What has pro bono publico to do with non profitable? I found "societas omnibus utilis", "societas publicis rationibus utilis", "societas bono publico instituta", "societas communi utilitati instituta" vel similia. --Alex1011 20:30, 23 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Equidem dixerim "societas non lucrativa". --Neander 23:49, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
hoc quidem etiam dicere possit societetem quae vult sed non potest. --Alex1011 06:47, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Si "societas non lucrifera" dixissem, certe tibi assentirer. Sed "lucrativus" adiectivum sensu neutrali adhiberi licet: cum "lucrifer" idem est ac "lucrum ferens", "lucrativus" neutraliter "ad lucrum pertinens" significat (vide quaeso Thesaurum linguae Latinae, sub verbis lucrifer et lucrativus). Mea quidem sententia "societas non lucrativa" est und ist das richtige Wort für "Organisation ohne Erwerbszweck". Sed sine dubio "non-profit organisation" compluribus elocutionibus latine reddi postest prout contextus postulat. --Neander 04:31, 29 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, Germanice Das ist nicht lukrativ dicit This is not profitable, there are no profits to be made out of this. --Alex1011 09:22, 29 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
But why use German as a norm? "Societas non lucrativa" suggested by me is rather in line with French "association à but non lucratif". --Neander 00:54, 30 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Dobby[fontem recensere]

What is Dobby's name in Latin? I don't have Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum, but if anyone else did, how was his name translated? And what about the word "house-elf?" Gratias tibi ago! -Secundus Zephyrus 05:18, 22 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Puto Dobbius,i (ut Harry --> Harrius) aut Dobbis,is at nescio quid "house-elf" sit, si tu mihi explicare vis, auxilium maius tibi dabo

"litteratura" an "litterae"[fontem recensere]

salvete. habeo quaestionem de hoc usu--utrum est rectius? foveo "litterae" usui sequens usum classicum... --Sempronius Tyro 20:07, 23 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Aulus Atilius A.f. Calatinus[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Aulus Atilius A.f. Calatinus. --Rolandus 17:48, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Pagina usoris[fontem recensere]

Quomodo possum adiungere meam paginam Babelis tabulam, in qua linguae quas scio sunt ? --Necator aliquando circum 13:50EST 28 Martii 2007

Sunt multae viae. Forma ,priusquam ad meas praeferentias mutaverim, qua utebamur est:

{| style="float: right; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px" | <center>'''[[:en:Wikipedia:Babel|Wikipedia:Babel]]'''</center> |- | {{Usor en}} |- | {{Usor la-3}} </td> </tr></table></div> |} ...etc..

--Ioshus (disp) 19:17, 28 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Salve, Necator. Aliter (ut ego facio in pagina mea): {{Babel-X|it|en-3|la-3|grc-3|... etc. ...}} Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 28 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Simplicius certe. Bonum scitu.--Ioshus (disp) 21:15, 28 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Translations[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Finnia#Finnish_and_Swedish_translations. --Rolandus 20:53, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)

vexillum_linguae_latinae[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio_nostra#vexillum_linguae_latinae. --Rolandus 10:45, 1 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Professors of classics (or Classics)[fontem recensere]

I want to delete Categoria:Professores rerum Classicarum apud UNAM, which, in the nature of things and classics, will never have very many members, and instead create a category such as Categoria:Professores rerum classicarum; it would be a subcategory of Categoria:Academici, I suppose. Does anyone have a comment? Is the name OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:24, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should move this particular college? Or that we should move all such subcategories? For instance, we have Categoria:Professores rerum Classicarum apud Universitatem Marylandensem and Categoria:Professores rerum Classicarum apud Universitatem Kentuckianam, both of which could easily have more members. Furthermore, the tradition of classics at both of these schools is strong and therefore *noteworthy (I hope =]). We also have a Categoria:Paedagogi. What are your thoughts on the difference between this and Categoria:Academici and what should we do about the other two apud universitatem blahblah categories?--Ioshus (disp) 15:48, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw the suggestion. I hadn't realised that there were other categories parallel to that one -- and in any case Usor:Stattloch1 tells me he intends to add more Mexicans. I am surprised these three groups count under paedagogi: I thought paedagogi worked at a more junior level (with παιδες in fact), and had assumed that academici would be university teachers. Perhaps a different division was intended originally. No problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:37, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think the English and the Latin are fighting here. In Latin you're probably right, a paedagogus probably connotes a sense of inferior gravitate and also inferior natu. But, on the same token, in English academic does not always indicate someone who teaches, and certainly does not necessarily indicate someone teaches well, whereas pedagogue strictly indicates someone who teaches. It even has an air of negative connotation "Oh, he's an academic. You know how they are." (obviously not to me, but in common parlance)
So here I wonder:
  1. Do we have a case of parent categories? Paedagogia => Paedagogi => Professores, Academici, Magistri (some of which could overlap, or maybe we should make it so that they shouldn't?)
  2. Do academics and professores belong under a different supercategory than Paedagogia?
  3. If Paedagogia is to be turned to dealing with said παιδες, what should we call the larger body of education/educators? Eruditio?
  4. Am I completely off the mark on all of this? (a possibility)
  5. Are there any other suggestions of which I haven't thought? (a certainty)
--Ioshus (disp) 20:29, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
OK, we have three relevant munera: Categoria:Academici, Categoria:Magistri and Categoria:Paedagogi. I created Academici, and it only has two members so it could be easily disbanded. I intended it to mean "dons, faculty, teachers in higher education". Perhaps Professores would be better.
Magistri seems to contain schoolmasters; that seems to me exactly right.
I was surprised at the current use of Paedagogi here (I never noticed it when creating Academici) because, yes, classical paedagogi were (to take the nearest current "English" words) au pairs and private tutors. I see Lewis & Short adds the meaning "pedant", but I don't think that's what we have in mind!
So my view would be that the three subcategories mentioned above (I mean "Professores rerum Classicarum apud ..." should be put under Academici or, if preferred, Categoria:Professores, not under Paedagogi. Paedagogi may still remain a useful category: some well known people have worked as private tutors.
If we want a supercategory, there remains the word Praeceptores. Would that cover the whole lot of them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:52, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Wow, sorry for taking so long to see this, Andrew. Ok, yes, I think Magistri speaks for itself. Let's save Academici, but keep it for, like you said, dons, deans, position chairs, etc, and have Paedagogi as it's currently used become Professores if they are, and Academici if indeed they are not. Like you said, it may still be a useful category,s o let's keep it. Praeceptores sounds like a good parent category for the people, and then maybe it all, including Categoria:Paedagogia, can go under Categoria:Eruditio?--Ioshus (disp) 22:29, 18 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
OK, I had five minutes to spare so I did it; satisfactorily I hope -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:04, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitesupport-url[fontem recensere]

This should be "http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising". That is much better. Because now the url goes first to "Vicipaedia:Site support". SPQRobin 12:08, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to find a Latin title for the page currently named Vicipaedia:Site support. Still, I think we should keep such a page and not link directly to wikimedia:Fundraising – maybe one day there will be information specific to the Latin vicipaedia that we might wish to add to Vicipaedia:Site support (or whatever that page will be named). Greetings, --UV 23:16, 9 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
It is a link to that page on many Wikipedias. And now there is only one sentence on Vicipaedia:Site support. SPQRobin 08:32, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Nomen Gaius aut Caius?[fontem recensere]

Quaero qualis forma magis preferibilis in vicipaedia sit uter Gaius et Caius... Volo primum dicere haec. In primis latinis scriptis littera G non fuit, sed solum C fuit. Littera C etiam litterā G fungebatur (ad exemplum prognatus procnatus scribitur). Postea G addita est, sed usus C pro G in quibusdam casibus mansit (ut Caius pro Gaio). Hoc nomen semper Caius scriptum est, etsi Gaium lectum est. Credo rectiorem formam Caium esse. Valete P. Vergilius Hadrianus [07/04/07 14:09 italica hora]

Credo Gaius omnibus litteris scribendum, sed C. abbreviato: sic faciunt fere omnes editores hodierni. In editionibus rarissime videmus Caius. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:25, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Recte dicis, praeter "Doctor John Caius" et "Caius and Gonville College." IacobusAmor 17:35, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Ut Cantabrigiensis, debeo meminisse de Doctore Caio ... Habemus paginam de illo? Scisne, cum senectus illum oppressit, quomodo medicus sanavit eum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Dump[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Dump/20070406 (a subpage of Vicipaedia:Dump). --Rolandus 22:54, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Auxilium[fontem recensere]

http://www.behindthename.com potest adiuvare vos nomina latina reperire - Amicus 20:55, 9 Aprilis 2007

Nomina sanscrita[fontem recensere]

Suntne hic consilia de versione nominum sanscritorum in latino sermone? Nunc autem sunt nomina paginarum hominum indorum modo sic, modo sic, si capitis quid dicam. Propono nos ut Franciscum Bopp ea nomina vertamus, quod is vere linguam novit!

Ad propositum, haec pagina longissima est. Nonne tabularia facetis? --Faustus 22:14, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

In secundam sententiam, quippe. In primam, nescio... Iacobus et Andreas talem rem disputabant, si bene memini.--Ioshus (disp) 22:21, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Ubi? --Faustus 22:36, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Petam. Mox responsurus sum.--Ioshus (disp) 22:41, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Disputatio:Religio Induica me puto in animo habuisse.--Ioshus (disp) 22:47, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Vides, in paginis Kalidasa, Atharvaveda, etc., ea quae feci recenter, Iacobo (ut credo) annuente. Usus sum translitteratione hodierna internationali, signis diacriticis omissis. Signa diacritica (et litteras devanagari) addidi in prima sententia paginae ubi de nomine solemus loqui. Sed, in titulo Rigvedae, pro Ṛ scripsi Ri ut faciunt alii multi.
Tu quid praeferis? Quid F. Bopp fecit, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Puto F. Bopp nomina masculina cum a curte terminata in secundum declinationem vertisse (ut Nâradus, sanscritus, brâhmanus, Mahâ-bhâratum). Quoque nomina feminina vertit in primam declinationem (ut Dâmayantia). (Theodisco homine, sonum monstravit cum litteras sch, sed id non refert.) Sententia mea est quod hoc modus rectior est, quoniam glottologicaliter fidelior, nominaque declinabilia facit. --Faustus 00:21, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Praemium[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Please vote: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Iacobus.

--Xaverius 18:50, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

De nova categoria creanda et recte nominanda[fontem recensere]

Salvete

Quomodo Latine dicitur "Sciences auxiliaires de l'histoire, alias Historischen Hilfswissenschaften, alias Auxiliary Sciences of History" ?

Scientia historiae (vel historici) auxiliaria ? Scientia ad historiam scribendam pertinens ? Scientia ad historicorum usum pertinens ?

Quid vobis videtur ? ThbdGrrd 19:42, 15 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Mihi placet conatus tuus secundus: Scientia ad historiam scribendam pertinens. Non me dico certum esse...--Ioshus (disp) 19:47, 15 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

"Mea sententia "Scientiae ad historiam scribendam pertinentes".Antonella Lignani 09:13, 18 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Mos Vicipaediae Latinae ad nominandas categorias dissimilis aliarum Vicipaediarum est. Numerus enim singularis est in usu, saltem cum disciplinae aliaque mentis opera censeantur.ThbdGrrd 08:01, 19 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

wikt[fontem recensere]

Just wanted to give a public thanks to Montivagus and Amphitrite who helped knock out 600+ edits of pinacotheca and victionarium over the weekend. Great work, y'all!! --Ioshus (disp) 17:09, 16 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Pagina prima[fontem recensere]

Antonella Lignani cunctis salutem plurimam dicit. Cur in pagina prima scriptum invenitur: "Vicipaedia opus commune est QUO creetur ....". Puto non QUO scribendum esse, sed potius UT, vel AD CREANDAM .... Nam QUO uti licet modo post vocabulum comparative expressum. Valete.

Estne pronomen relativum in casu ablativo instrumentali? --Alex1011 09:02, 18 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Etian ut eo = quo. --Alex1011 09:02, 18 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Ita, antecedens est "opus". "Vicipaedia is a communal project, by which a free encyclopaedia might be created..."--Ioshus (disp) 12:52, 18 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
And the late placement of est permits the translation 'The project "Vicipaedia" is communal'. IacobusAmor 11:56, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Latin coin[fontem recensere]

Sorry that I write in English. I'm quite able to understand Latin, but I don't speak/write it. Did you already notice that - perhaps for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire - a coin, bearing an inscription in Latin is again legal tender in most of the Roman Empire (i.e. the Euro zone) today? 84.163.254.118 20:11, 20 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Crebritas versus frequentia[fontem recensere]

Videtur multas paginas Vicipaediae vocabulo 'frequentia' male uti. Secundum dictionarium meum, frequentia non significat Anglice 'frequency' et Hispanice 'frequencia' et Italice 'frequenza'; 'freqentia' significat 'turba' vel 'agglomeratio'. Verba Latina quae Anglice 'frequency' correspondent sunt 'crebritas' et 'crebritudo'. Rafaelgarcia 12:14, 21 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

nota[fontem recensere]

Perfect work. Great site. Add more pictures. It'll make your site more attractive.--(nov) (prox) 02:44, 22 Aprilis 2007 203.121.79.210 (disputatio | obstruere) (82 octeti) (no theme) [reverti]

Synthebot[fontem recensere]

(version in English)

Hello, I would like to let my bot run on this wikipedia. Its name is Synthebot. Its only activity is fixing interwiki links. For doing this, it uses the interwiki.py script of the pywikipedia package. It runs on demand, for specific categories based on the Interlingua wikipedia. It already has a bot status at the following wikipedias: ar, en, es, fr, he, hi, it, no, pt, simple, zh.

Some extra information about myself is that I am an administrator in the Interlingua wikipedia, and I actively collaborated in the Interlingua, English and Spanish wikipedias. For further questions, do not hesitate in contacting me at my talk page.

(version in interlingua)

Salute, io volerea permiter mi bot currer in iste wikipedia. Su nomine es Synthebot. Su sol activitate es corriger ligamines interwiki. Pro facer isto, illo usa le script interwiki.py del pacchetto pywikipedia. Illo curre basso demanda, pro categorias specific basate in le wikipedia in interlingua. Illo jam ha le stato de bot in le sequente wikipedias: ar, en, es, fr, he, hi, it, no, pt, simple, zh.

Alicun information extra super me es que io es un administrator in le wikipedia in interlingua, e io ha collaborate activemente in le wikipedias in interlingua, anglese e espaniol. Pro altere questiones, non dubita in contactar me a mi pagina de discussion.

Julian Mendez 11:17, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to run your bot here. (In fact, the Latin wikipedia would certainly benefit from more bots that do not only deal with year pages and the like, but with specific themes as well …)
You do not need a bot flag at the moment. We will look at the edits that your bot makes: If your bot appears reliable and makes a significant number of edits, it can be granted the bot flag later. Greetings, --UV 13:40, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Julian Mendez 16:02, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

UV, ille videtur omnino bene ac utillime agere. Quoque multae emendationes facit. Rogabo Adamam vexillium automatonis dare, nisi tibi displicat?--Ioshus (disp) 17:14, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Etiam petii. Ecce vexillium!--Ioshus (disp) 21:39, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Conquistadores[fontem recensere]

I was wondering which would be the best way of creating an article related to the Spanish conquistadores and explorers. Firstly, my dictionary says: "conquistador: domitor y victor -oris, m.", son my first idea of "conquistator" seems to have no basis. Secondly, I would like to include explorers too. I was thinking of [[Exploratores Hispani]], but that would rather be a categoria, and [[America armas subacta]] would imply only America and only conquest. Any suggestions? In the mean time, I'll return to my Visigoths...--Xaverius 22:43, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

"Gulielmus I (rex Angliae)", William the Conqueror, was called in Latin texts "Conquestor". --Alex1011 10:28, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Conquestor, -is (m)? Thanks a lot! I'll try to see what can I write--Xaverius 11:13, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Praemium - Alexander[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Please vote: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Alexander. --Xaverius 15:16, 23 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Vir publicus, Mulier publicus[fontem recensere]

Vir publicus may be OK, but I fear "Mulier publica" as a designation of Segolena Royal has an annoying ambiguity. The obvious French translation of this phrase would be grounds for libel. Can someone think of a better term? Would "Mulier politica" do to be getting on with? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

'Politics' = politica (pl.) and res politicae, so 'female politician' could be politicorum perita and rerum politicarum perita. Is vir publicus for 'politician' attested before the twentieth century? IacobusAmor 13:33, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Icons and images[fontem recensere]

sorry if this is just a problem of my computer, but haven't most of the icons dissapeared? flags, the coulour indicators of latinitas.... where have they gone?--Xaverius 14:38, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Literae alteris linguas[fontem recensere]

Quomodo litteræ in alterisis linguisis portio videre possum? Debeone habere alfabetum an est problematia vicipaediae? Ego quamquam tarde scio (though slowly, i´m learning) [Arianus iv kalendas maias]

Qua pagina? Da exemplum, s.v.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Suntne pelliculae in lingua latina? [Arianus iv kalendas maias]

Quippe Mel Gibson talem fecit.--Ioshus (disp) 13:55, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
en:Sebastiane --Alex1011 18:35, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

lingua Graeca antiqua - legatus[fontem recensere]

Do we need (or have) another ambassador for ancient (or modern) Greek language? For instance I found for "Istanbul" Greek "eis ten polin", which according to Swedish wikipedia (now we need a Swedish embassador) means "till staden", what I translated with "ad urbem", hoping that this is a correct rendition. --Alex1011 08:24, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your translation is right. It is not certain whether this is the origin of the name Istanbul, but it is quite possible. In medieval Greek the phrase would have been pronounced "is tim boli", which is a close but not perfect match. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
I am still wondering whether we need a Latin word for "Istanbul" or is Constantinopolis sufficient. How would you call "Little Istanbul" (like "Littel Italy"), what you can find in greater cities, - "Constantinopolis minor" or "Istanbulum minus" (Istanbulia minor) or simply, following the possible Greek etymology, "Polis minor"? --Alex1011 14:07, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
What I prefer to do is to adopt a Latin name from other sources if any Latin name is recorded; but to give the native name (followed by a translation) if not. So what I would do is:
  • To continue calling the city Constantinopolis: it is a well-established name, there's nothing wrong with it, it's not offensive, and it is commonly used in Latin. The fact that a different name is used in most other languages is irrelevant, because this is Vicipaedia.
  • To call those city districts exactly what they are called in the local language: Klein-Istanbul or Little Istanbul or whatever, followed by a Latin rendering in parentheses ("Constantinopolis parva" or "minor").
But others may have a different view! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:03, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Einfache lateinische Texte | Simple Latin texts[fontem recensere]

deutsche Sprache
Deutsch
Für einen allgemeinen Sprachkurs – der also nicht auf eine bestimmte zu lernende Sprache beschränkt ist – brauchen wir Lektionstexte. Würde sich vielleicht jemand, der Latein wie eine Muttersprache beherrscht, bereit erklären, zu helfen? Das Buch liegt in den deutschen Wikibooks unter de:b:Der einfache Weg zum Sprachgenie. Es ist kein großer Aufwand, wenn man die Sprache gut beherrscht. Bis jetzt habe ich selbst alles geschrieben.
English language
English
We need text material for a general language course, which is not dedicated to a particular language to learn. Would be fine, if there was any native-like Latin speaker to help us. The book is currently to be found in the German Wikibooks, see de:b:Der einfache Weg zum Sprachgenie. It is quite simple to create these texts when being proficient in the language. Until now I wrote everything by myself. If you are interested, but cannot understand the German description in the mentioned book, let me know. It would give me great pleasure.

89.50.35.90 16:35, 30 Aprilis 2007 (UTC) (de:b:User Talk:Nowotoj)

Would be fine, if there was any native-like Latin speaker to help us - I am afraid this won't be so easy :-) 213.151.218.130 21:02, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Legacy[fontem recensere]

I would like to fix on a heading that could be used whenever necessary, on any biography page, for a post-death section about how the person has appeared in later ages -- in legend, literature, art, etc. Perhaps someone has already devised such a heading and I haven't seen it. Once or twice I have used "Aetatibus Posterioribus", but it seems to me an ugly phrase: there must be something better ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a word that translates or somehow relates to the modern English phrase reception studies? (Vide http://www2.open.ac.uk/ClassicalStudies/GreekPlays/crsn/index.shtml.) So therefore maybe simply receptio? IacobusAmor 19:31, 4 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I like that. In fact, I like it better in Latin than in English! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I have just found, on the page Caecilius Statius, the heading ==Fortuna==. This is the mot juste in Latin, I think. Wish I'd thought of it before. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

linux_in_latin[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Disputatio:Linux#linux_in_latin. --Rolandus 07:55, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested in contributing to the Rosetta translation project for the language Latin, the site is the following: Translations Launchpad. Note that your contributions will be incorporated into all unix/linux/mac operating systems (possibly windows?) in the future and be available free to the public. There are a couple of people already contributing to the projecct, though the translations are a bit lacking, so that they could use a couple of good latinists to check and revise if not also contribute new translations. Rafaelgarcia 16:20, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Note you need to register first to use the website.Rafaelgarcia 16:21, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Binomen (sic)[fontem recensere]

I thought it was necessary to have some link to attach to scientific names of plants and animals (just as we put Latine and Anglice etc. against words in those languages). So I have written a short article Binomen, a modern neologism but a useful one, I think. So now, if you put binomen before or after a scientific name, readers can reach this article, which has links to the codes of botanical and zoological nomenclature and to articles on Lingua Latina botanica and Lingua Latina zoologica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Macte, Andrea! Utillime!--Ioshus (disp) 14:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! So then we'd change this:
Leo (-onis, m.) bestia est quae inter mammalia numeratur. Leo (scientae nomen: Panthera leo) est mammalis, familia Felidae.
to something like this:
Leo (binomen: Panthera leo) est bestia quae inter mammalia in familia Felidarum numeratur.
Right? (And is numeratur the best verb here?) IacobusAmor 15:18, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, Iacobe. We should still have the normal genitive for links to Wiktionary.
Eg = '''Leo''' (-onis, ''m.'') => '''Leo''' ([[:wikt:Leo|-onis, ''m.'']] ; [[binomen]]: ''Panthera leo''), I would think.--Ioshus (disp) 17:27, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but the copyeditor in me hates the reversal of the functions of semicolons & colons like this. The colon is ordinarily a bigger, stronger mark, but here you're making the semicolon (which, unaccountably, you've put a full space to the left of) serve a bigger separating function than the colon. And why isn't the system turning your four tildes into your sig? And why isn't it interpreting my four colons correctly? --Iacobus17:15, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
The copyediting is your thing, and I defer to your judgement of the proper use of colons, semicolons, apostrophes and anything else. I'm just talking about the wiktionary link, and the binomial part. The system wasn't interpretting your tildes because I told it not to and accidentally forgot to untell it so. Should be fixed.--Ioshus (disp) 17:27, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
It isn't just copyediting: it's a matter of common sense. Especially in expository discourse, all elements of the diction should be consistent. If an article calls Goritia an urbs in paragraph 1, it shouldn't call it an oppidum in paragraph 2 and a vicus in paragraph 3. You get the idea. IacobusAmor 12:54, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

PS: If what you have is not a binomen but a single name (genus, family, order etc.) you can instead put nomen latinum botanicum (or nomen latinum zoologicum) after it or in a footnote (as I have just done at Fabales and Bataceae). These are redirects that will take the reader to the same set of links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Since official botanical & zoological names (except maybe those of certain algae) are in Latin, this latinum may not be necessary, so perhaps you could make sure you've got redirects for nomen botanicum and nomen zoologicum. IacobusAmor 12:56, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Iacobe. Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

{{Data Sancti}}[fontem recensere]

There's a problem with this formula: on most of the pages in which it's included, it doesn't work. Can anyone see why? I just did a test to see if it was the minor change I made yesterday that caused the problem, but no, it seems to be older than that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is this edit: [1], an IP has already corrected some pages, but many of them still remain... --Amphitrite 20:25, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)

New dump[fontem recensere]

There is a new dump: Vicipaedia:Dump/latest --Rolandus 10:46, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)

bot status for Robbot, PolarBot, and SieBot[fontem recensere]

I have just requested bot status to be given to Usor:Robbot (conlationes), Usor:PolarBot (conlationes), and Usor:SieBot (conlationes). I hope this will improve the usefulness of our recentchanges list again. Greetings, --UV 12:50, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Urbs/Index stipularum[fontem recensere]

Do we need page Urbs/Index stipularum yet? --Rolandus 15:47, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)

vicipaedia password, e-mail address in preferences[fontem recensere]

Last week, some unpleasant events happened on the English wikipedia: Unknown individuals succeeded to crack a few admin accounts (in most cases, the affected admins had used weak passwords) and to upset a few things there. Inter alia, they managed temporarily to delete the main page, and to insert a really disgusting picture on the top of every single page. Other admins were quick to block the compromised accounts and to undo the changes effected.

Still, I would like to ask anyone

  • to make sure to use a strong password here (see, e. g. en:Password strength). You can change your password at Specialis:Preferences or by clicking on the “praeferentiae meae” link at the top of the screen, and
  • to enter and to confirm your e-mail address (again, at Specialis:Preferences or by clicking on the “praeferentiae meae” link at the top of the screen). You do not need to enable any of the other e-mail features, but a confirmed e-mail address in your preferences will enable you to recover your password should you forget it or in case you get locked out of your account for other reasons.

Greetings, --UV 19:46, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Quomodo nova pagina incipitur[fontem recensere]

Ave amice!: Quommodo unam novam temam aprire possum? rogavit Usor:Hispaniae cicero --UV 21:23, 14 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Si vis novam paginam incipere, inscribe nomen paginae in capsam "quaerere" et preme "Ire". Si haec pagina nondum exstitit, monstrabitur: "Nulla pagina cum titulo "[Nova pagina]" exacto existit. Potes eam creare." Preme "eam creare". --UV 21:23, 14 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Hispaňa est bonus, sed latinam est melior

13,000[fontem recensere]

Pagina numero 13,000 est Carolus XIV (rex Sueciae), a Massimo Macconi incepta, ut credo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Macte! Paginam mutavi primam.--Ioshus (disp) 18:03, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Color[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Color#Color_without_interwiki_links. --Rolandus 06:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Pages in the German/English Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Please see:

Maybe it would help to get attention, if we could provide interwiki links for these pages in the German/English Wikipedia. --Rolandus 09:34, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Bookmarks[fontem recensere]

I have started a collection of (more or less useful) bookmarks: Vicipaedia:Index nexuum. Good links from there should be moved to the appropriate pages later. --Rolandus 11:50, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Res Novae[fontem recensere]

I wonder if anyone knows the history and/or logic behind the term "res novae" (pl.) which the dictionary gives as the proper translation for "political revolution". It's just that I can't figure out how you go from something like "rerum administrationis commutatio" or "rei publicae commutatio" or simply "commutatio", all of which seem better to me, to "res novae"... Is there a good way to think of "res" such that "res novae" as "political revolution" would make more sense? Rafaelgarcia 01:27, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

It was a cliché in the 1st century BC, used by Cicero, Caesar and Horace; the latter referred to the Allobroges as "novis rebus infidelis Allobrox" the Allobrogian, unreliable during a revolution (rather unfair, but it happened to fit the metre of Horace's poem). I take it the idea is "res" meaning business, public affairs, etc.; "novus" meaning not just new but different. Caesar's phrase was "novis rebus studebat", he was working towards revolution, i.e. a different arrangement of political affairs. Don't know if this helps ...
Allobroges, now there's a redlink that needs turning blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I guess Res Novae simultaneously evokes so many meanings that "political revolution" is lost among them. If someone came up on the street and said "audivisiti de rebus novis?" I would think "did you hear about the news?" not "did you hear about the revolution?". Similarly if a woman up and says "Vidisti meas res novas?" ... Would it therefore be more appropriate for an encyclopedia to use/prefer a different, more specific term like "commutatio politica" or "revolutio politica" for "political revolution" (with of course "Res Novae" mentioned as an alternative acceptable historical term)? I am thinking about the history of Cuba which has had its share of revolutions and refering to "res novae primae" and "res novae praeteritae" would seem so incredibly awkward.--Rafaelgarcia 14:12, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
This is what I tell my students about res...it doesn't mean "thing", it means "every thing" (which is not the same as "everything").--Ioshus (disp) 15:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Well, what woudl you think if someone asked you "Quid de re publica sentis?" ;) --Iustinus 17:02, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
In a political discussion, I would think he is asking "What do you think about the government?" But in a context regarding some particular public affair, I would think he is saying "What do you think about the public affair?" "Re publica" means "public thing", which thing depends on the context. If no context is specified then the only public thing I can think of is the government. "Res nova" means "new thing" and which thing likewise depends on the context, but here in the absence of specified context, I find there is nothing for me to go on to automatically think of government at all. "Res Novae means "new things", I would with my modern mind, in the absence of any other context, first think of "technology" or "gadgets" or "new items" not "political revolution". I don't dispute "res novae" can mean "revolution" in certain contexts such as Caesar's and Cicero's. However, revolutions are apparently common enough, and in modern times new things are common enough as well, that a more specific term is needed to specify "political revolution". Res Novae just seems too general.--Rafaelgarcia 17:28, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
My point is that res and "thing" are not exact synonyms. A statue in a park is a public thing but it is not a res publica. I don't think res novae always means political revolution, but the phrase is very charged in any case. I think it generally means "a disturbing change." You could theoretically say "I bought this at a 50% discount. Isn't that a big deal?" because 50% off IS a pretty "big" "deal." But you would never say that, because "big deal" means something else to English speakers. There's no need for Latin, even in an encyclopedia, to use every word with scientific accuracy, any more so than English does. However, you are welcome to prove me wrong: find a locus classicus or even a later locus from a good author, where res novae cannot possibly mean "revolution" or "disturbing change," and I will happily concede. --Iustinus 19:00, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Although res novae means what it means, it isn't the only solution. It is very classical, very idiomatic, also very dependent on context -- particularly on the verb that you choose to put with it. My old English-Latin dictionary (Riddle and Arnold) gives me as follows for "Revolution": "rerum publicarum commutatio or conversio; rerum mutatio; res commutatae; civilis perturbatio; seditio (tumult, disorder)." No mention of "res novae" thus far. It then suggests "res novae", but only in connection with phrases that include specific verbs: "res novas quaerere or moliri; novis rebus studere; rerum evertendarum cupidum esse; ... novos motus conversionesque reipublicae quaerere". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)
For 'a revolution of public affairs', my eighteenth-century dictionary gives Latin publicarum rerum vicissitudo; publicae rei conversio, vel mutatio. IacobusAmor 21:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

novae res ~ res novae[fontem recensere]

Guys, don't ignore the importance of word order: it may be that novae res are 'new things', but res novae became a fixed phrase meaning 'political revolution'. Regularly in Caesar and later, novus and vetus precede their noun, but regularly in Cato (and presumably before), they follow it; nevertheless, "In Caesar there is rather free variation between pre- and postmodifier in the phrases res nova and tabulae novae, but otherwise the intentional meanings [technically defined] dominate and the premodifier is regular" (Devine & Stephens, Latin Word Order, p. 451). IacobusAmor 21:04, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

All of these comments above have provided much, very valuable insight on the issue! Indeed, indeed I feel all of this is so important that it deserves it own pagina Res novae. --Rafaelgarcia 10:01, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Please continue the disucssion at Disputatio:Res novae--Rafaelgarcia 16:03, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Praemium - Andrew[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Please vote: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Andrew Dalby.--Xaverius 11:28, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

While you're there, vote at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Xaverius.--Ioshus (disp) 15:05, 21 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella[fontem recensere]

Hi I tried to find this word a the notre dam latin dictionary and to no avail. I need to find out a translation for this since one of the old names of a province , Palawan is paragua . Your help would be appreciated.--Jondel 09:13, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Umbrella -ae is latin already!--Rafaelgarcia 09:52, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
But Umbella without the r is more correct. --Iustinus 10:00, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see!. By the way, umbella is more like parasol (?)--Jondel 10:06, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Is something wrong with Palavana or Palawana or Palavanum or some such rendering of the original term? IacobusAmor 10:40, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it would be better to use the Latin derivative from the original Spanish name. Palavana looks appropriate.--Jondel 11:22, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

bots[fontem recensere]

  1. BotMultichill
  2. TXiKiBoT

Anyone mind if these two bots get the flag?--Ioshus (disp) 01:58, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)

No?--Ioshus (disp) 22:03, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I have asked Adam to grant the bot flag for these two bots.--Ioshus (disp) 02:37, 24 Maii 2007 (UTC)

New dump[fontem recensere]

There is a new dump: Vicipaedia:Dump/latest --Rolandus 17:22, 24 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Policy on "contribuenda"[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Formulae:Contribuenda. --Rolandus 06:42, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Lercherl Zwiefacher[fontem recensere]

Trumpet 1.jpg

Maybe a bit off-topic, but a nice sound: http://www.bayerischer-wald.de/fileserver/baywacm/Files/86.mp3 (from Disputatio:Bavaria#Material_for_this_page). ;-) --Rolandus 09:29, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Praenomina Romana[fontem recensere]

I'm thinking of making a short list, on a separate page, of abbreviated Roman praenomina. I know this partly duplicates what is at "praenomen", but I guess praenomen will eventually be a longish page and is not restricted to classical Roman usage. If I do this it would then be possible to link to it from the first sentences of such pages as:

to discourage people from altering these first sentences unnecessarily. Any comments? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:02, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea! Allen & Greenough #108, "Names of Persons," could be of interest here: it lists the "commonest praenomens" with their abbreviations, and has a footnote on how to read a name of the form "M. TVLLIVS. M. F. M. N. M. PR. COR. CICERO." IacobusAmor 11:40, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I'm for it. Good idea, Andrew.--Ioshus (disp) 12:35, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

User page observation[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Disputatio Usoris:Athena0584. The material that "Casual" is complaining about might not be seriously inaccurate, but it is certainly in terrible Latin and I don't see why it belongs on the page Usor:Athena0584. The said user has not yet contributed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably delete that.--Ioshus (disp) 12:35, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Andrew, Athena herself is the one who put the Kirsten Dunst article on her user page.--Ioshus (disp) 12:37, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I knew that. I meant "... has not contributed outside his/her own user page." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:28, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, misread.--Ioshus (disp) 16:34, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I think ...
  • Nobody is responsible for an other user's Latin.
  • Nobody is responsible for an other user's opinions.
  • It is ok to have a different opinion if it is not against law.
  • It is ok to give the users some webspace if they give something back.
  • I is good not to use an IP when posting an opinion.
  • It is good to watch how things develop.
--Rolandus 15:52, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I mainly wanted to bring Casual's comments to others' attention: that's why I mentioned it here. I mostly agree with you, Rolande, but not totally.
It is OK to have an opinion, whatever law it breaks. The problem is when you publish the opinion. We are publishing Athena's opinion about Kirsten Dunst -- a living person. en:wikipedia is very careful about what is said concerning living persons, and for good reason, I think. Published opinions about other people can attract litigation, in which case the courts test whether they are "against the law".
And this is just where bad Latin becomes a problem (otherwise, of course, on user pages, it doesn't matter). The worse the Latin, the more questionable what exactly it means and whether it's libellous. On a quick reading, I didn't feel too sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:28, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both parties. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, no one is entitled to be wrong about the facts. I will delete the page.--Ioshus (disp) 16:34, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
One party. :-) Andrew, I understood that your point was to bring this to our attention. My statements were mainly adressed to the anonymous writer. But you are right, there are also other things to consider. You mention an interesting point: If the language is such bad that nobody can say for sure what the text means, we should treat the content like Klingonian or any other language we do not understand but where the content _might_ be insulting or illegal: Then we should consider removing to be on the save side. --Rolandus 16:52, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I'm joining your party right now, Rolande :-)) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I came to the party late, but I'm not getting the party line. Someone implies that the referenced text is "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense." Insofar as I can negotiate the vagaries of the questioned Latinesque farrago, the text seems merely to be a news report about someone who advocates legalizing marijuana. There's certainly no disrepute in that, and who (but a dictator) could be offended by a news report about free political speech? Also, I take it that Kirsten Dunst is a well-known personage (though I've never heard of him or her), and in that case, a suit for libel will fail—at least in the United States, where Wikipedia is based—unless the plaintiff can show malice, not just a witting untruthfulness, on the defendant's part. The relevant issues I see here are: (1) if someone other than a user places a text on a user's page, then the user and any administrator may delete it without consultation or announcement; (2) if a Latin text is so wretched that it invites universal horror, well, I don't know what the remedy for that is! IacobusAmor 18:29, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
If you've studied the page and say that's it's not "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense" I'm happy to accept your view and grateful that you've gone all through it!
Since it doesn't tell us anything about the user (apparently) and does tell us a lot of things about someone quite different (apparently) I am still uncomfortable with it. It appears to be using Vicipaedia for something that is "not relevant to the project" (unless, I guess, it's a draft for a projected article: but it doesn't look like one).
Since I have now read en:Wikipedia:User page for the first time, and since Iacobus has now read the piece all through and reported on it, I guess I'm ready to make a suggestion, which I hadn't yet done. I would, as a start, suggest to Athena that it be moved from the user page -- and, by all means, reworked into an article, with quotations referenced. That's what we're here for, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

See what you guys think of the letter I drafted here.--Ioshus (disp) 19:35, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Ioshe, I think that's fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to mention this, as it seems a bit obvious, but nobody has mentioned it here... the user page in question seems to be a straightforward (if beginner) attempt at translation of the news article linked at the bottom of it. That rules out personal malice, personal opinion, and reworking into an article... —Mucius Tever 03:07, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Right. I wondered if it was (but hadn't gone as far as to compare the texts). My best guess is that this user (who has not yet reappeared) might think that this is what Wikipedia is: you create a username, you post some text on your user space from whatever source about whatever subject, and it becomes part of the worldwide encyclopedia.
The fact that it's on the user space would make it just a new variant on a misconception we encounter often. Others would have started an article Kirsten Dunst and posted the material there -- leaving us to add our various formulae to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:31, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)


De Viris Ilustribus[fontem recensere]

Well, I have been looking at some of the articles extrated out of "de viris ilustribus" and I have seen that none of them have nither dates nor blue links. Also the content could be divided in headings (==blablabla==). And some of the titles are misleading. I think if an important part of our Vicipaedia is about the Romans, we should have all these pages "vicificated" (or whatever verb)--Xaverius 08:59, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Did you add "vicificanda" (inside double curly brackets) to each of them? Presumably our clever programmers have made a program that lists all pages so marked, and then some of us can go through that list as the spirit moves us, wikifying to our hearts' content. IacobusAmor 10:42, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a cunning plan; as cunning as a fox that used to be professor of cunning at Oxford University but has moved on and is now working for the UN at the high commission of international cunning planning.--Xaverius 10:51, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Right, they need wikification. The template is {{vicificanda}}, which puts the pages into Categoria:Paginae vicificandae and you'll find them also listed on page Vicipaedia:Dump/latest, in section Vicificanda. --Rolandus 11:07, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I see you have now added those templates, Xaveri. You're right, these articles should be close to our heart. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

petitio magistratus[fontem recensere]

Videte quaeso petitiones (Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus) pro usoribus Amphitrite, et Maximo. Ut valeatis.--Ioshus (disp) 14:50, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

De Magistratibus[fontem recensere]

About the magistratus I have a couple of things to say. I have been explained that most of our magistratus are not active. I just had a look and I found out of our magistratus the following:

  • Usor:Brion VIBBER is a magistratus, but has been active only one day, 18th December 2003
  • Usor:Pfortuny is a magistratus and has only one edit, also the 18th of december 2003
  • Usor:Rob Hooft - the same applies for him! and he says that he knows no Latin.
  • My last example: Usor:Stan Shebs, who has only been active three days, the sop-famous 18th december 2003, 1st september 2004 and 14th october 2006

I do not know how did these usores became magistratus. I know it might sound harsh and I don't want to be mean, but why don't we "refresh" as it were our magistratus? could the other magistratus eliminate the examples I have proposed?--Xaverius 17:49, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Was this Vicipaedia's first day? It might explain the observable phenomena. I don't think we can get rid of them, only Adam.--Ioshus (disp) 21:53, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The first day was 25th may, 2002 and the first article I have been able to track down is Suecia. (see in Historia Vicipaediae Latinae)--Xaverius 21:57, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think Brion is (or was) an admin on every Wikipedia language, or at least every new one. The others must have volunteered to keep an eye out for obvious vandalism, which often happens at new Wikipedias when there are not yet any established users or native speakers (or, whatever we are, here). Adam Episcopus 22:30, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I see... Neverhtless, now that their function is not needed and they are not active, is it an idea to consider to refresh the list of magistratus?--Xaverius 22:46, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the power to do that, and according to the stewards (who do have that power), it is not worth the effort. If they aren't doing any harm we might as well leave them. Adam Episcopus 16:00, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Declinatio[fontem recensere]

One magistratus, two magistratus; 4th declension. Hence: "De magistratibus." IacobusAmor 20:27, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Ok, like manus,-us (us, us, us, um, us, u//us, us, uum, us, ibus, ibus) then? I think I've already said I don't really like the fourth declension...--Xaverius 20:59, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
us, us, ui...but yes.--Ioshus (disp) 21:38, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Which one is the -ui? nom/voc/gen/acc/dat/abl is how I list cases, but I know for sure that the genitive is -us. Is the vocative in -ui, then?--Xaverius 21:42, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Dative. Vocative is -us.--Ioshus (disp) 21:52, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
us, us, us, um, ui, u//us, us, uum, us, ibus, ibus. Thanks!--Xaverius 21:57, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh...I'm a NGDAcAbVL type...--Ioshus (disp) 22:01, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Shamefully, I tend to ignore the locative...--Xaverius 22:05, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
You probably ignore the dual in Greek, too, don't you? =] --Ioshus (disp) 22:11, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I am proud to be a latinist and I dislike Greek! The more Roman, the better, and the later and less Roman, even better (if that ,made sense at all) =]. No matter how many times my tutors try: It is a "palium" not a "hymathion"; a "tunic" not a "whatever it was", and "stoa" is only just acceptable. And just because it is compulsory that I take Greek (classical, Hellenistic and archaic) archaeology as a subject.--Xaverius 22:15, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
How old are you, and how long have you been a Latinist? I was 22 and a Latinist 3 years before I liked Greek =] --Ioshus (disp) 22:20, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe Romanist rather than Latinist. I'm 20 now, and my Latinist history is rather abrupt. I did a year of Latin at school, then a term of Latin two years ago and I had Latin last year here at Oxford. Basically, I "enlisted" in vicipaedia not to forget my Latin.--Xaverius 22:25, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

A_section_for_the_title[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Pellicula#A_section_for_the_title. --Rolandus 10:03, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Statistics[fontem recensere]

The statistics have been updated: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaLA.htm#wikipedians (Vicipaedia:Census) --Rolandus 15:46, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Pagina prima/Nova[fontem recensere]

A few of us were discussion a massive rehaul of the main page. Please see Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova, and offer any of your ideas.--Ioshus (disp) 20:55, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Catgraph[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Catgraph. Amazing. --Rolandus 11:05, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

This is awesome!--Xaverius 11:45, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's awesome! I just got to see it, it was timing out on me earlier.--Ioshus (disp) 03:08, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Mores[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Mores Vicipaediae. --Rolandus 14:17, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Following_EN[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Deletio#Following_EN. --Rolandus 14:56, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Units[fontem recensere]

This is a minor matter, and after asking Andrew, it seems that we do not have a rule regarding units. I thought that we were metric here, but aparently it is more a consensus than a norm. Are there any rules on this aspects in other wikis?--Xaverius 20:21, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Or, if we do have a rule, neither of us has been able to find it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:23, 8 Iunii 2007
I think hard and fast rules on this are not a good thing. Generally speaking I think SI units should be the norm but one shouldn't insist on SI units. For instance, passus, pedes, etc., are as as good as km and meters in my opinion as long as the reader is given enough information to understand what you refer to. Is there something specific you have in mind?--Rafaelgarcia 02:50, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I prefer SI, myself, and think anything else should be given in parentheses, and secondarily. It may not be the most Latin way of doing things, but it is the more modern, and certainly most sensible for an international community. That being said, I am not so attached to this belief as others. Whatever we decide, we should write a policy page.--Ioshus (disp) 03:06, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should be laid back about this. I'm pretty sure en: allows imperial units so long as metric is given in parentheses, and that seems like the right way to do it here too, imho. --Iustinus 04:39, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that en: has a policy, it's that the original measurement comes first, followed by equivalents in metric, imperial, or both. So: 20,000 leagues (111,000 km, 69,000 miles). --67.185.172.158 07:52, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
One of the beautiful things about Vicipaedia is that we are not Wikipedia.--Ioshus (disp) 08:34, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Request:Mercantilis->Mercatoria[fontem recensere]

I recently moved the pagina Societas mercantilis to Societas mercatoria because mercantilis can't be found in a dictionary whereas mercatoria can be (Traupman). Could a magister please also move the Categoria:Societates mercantiles to Categoria:Societates mercatoriae ? THanks--Rafaelgarcia 03:29, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Unless wikis have moved ahead of me, there's no quick way. You have to create the new category, adding interwiki links and also adding a link to it in at least one other major language wikipedia; then edit each member of the category, substituting the new category name; and when the old category is left with no members, get a magistrate to delete it. Oddly enough, I have just been doing all this with the category Regnum Unitum, now Categoria:Britanniarum Regnum. Have fun! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
All set...its ready for a magistratus/a to delete Categoria:Societates mercantiles.--Rafaelgarcia 20:03, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
done --UV 20:38, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Tabernella[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Porta_eruditionis#Taberna. --Rolandus 09:51, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Novissima[fontem recensere]

If you click on Novissima (just under the globe) it used to bring up the latest news, didn't it? It doesn't do that today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, it does now, because I edited the redirect Nuntii to lead to Vicipaedia:Nuntii. But have I made anything else go wrong by doing that? I hope not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I caused that problem, I forgot that the left navigation calls Nuntii when I made the redirect. On all other pages I have removed the Nuntii. The link "Novissima" should call Vicipaedia:Nuntii, not Nuntii. --Rolandus 14:52, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Verba disputata[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Verba disputata. --Rolandus 18:19, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Pagina prima, part 2[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina_prima # The left navigation frame (part 2). --Rolandus 20:39, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Computer terminology in Latin[fontem recensere]

The new Pagina prima looks real gorgeous. Also its Latin is now more dependable. Still there are some terminological issues I'd like bring to discussion. The first time when my eyes met the phrase Fasciculos onerare, I had no idea of what that might mean. (Am I the only one?)

What is 'file' in Latin?[fontem recensere]

Of course I knew that fasciculus means a little bundle or packet of something, but it took some time until it dawned upon me that, in this context, fasciculus must mean 'file' as a bundle of data. No generally accepted Latin word for 'electronic file' seems to exist. Because we have no mos maiorum to watch in the world of computers, we must obviously draw on other criteria. What about semantic transparency?

I have met with quite a few proposals for a Latin word for '(electronic) file', viz.

  • codicillus, -i [not awfully bad once you see the metaphor];
  • data, -orum (plurale tantum) [good enough but problematic because basically it's a mass noun lacking the singular / plural distinction];
  • fasciculus, -i [not awfully bad once you see the metaphor];
  • filum, -i [etymologically related to file but semantically remote, due to the long cultural evolution of file; besides, filum seems to be in use to denote 'wire'];
  • plica, -ae [a bold back-formation from the rare verb plicare (or is it from Polish plik?); semantics: non liquet, not to me anyway];
  • scapsus [corrupt? - maybe purports to be the following (or capsa?)];
  • scapus, -i ['shaft, scape'; semantics escapes me].

None of the above satisfies completely. Even the best lie behind a metaphor which isn't readily resolved even contextually. What makes even the best ones semantically opaque is their polysemy, many meanings. (Well, on the other hand, English file is even more polysemous, so this may be a weak argument.) Which one to pick out? Or should we coin a more transparent word? Let me begin: datarium (cf. harena : harenarium = data : X). Or should we borrow (like most European languages): file, -is (cf. anime, -is from Japanese)? Opinions? Proposals?

By far the most common phrases for "file" are plica and scapus. The former really means folder though, and actually one could argue the latter does as well: the idea is taht a scapus is the hollow roll into which one stuffs a scroll.
Terentius once told me that he thinks the best term is really just documentum, and ever since hearing that, I tend to agree.
--Iustinus 01:39, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
In medieval music, a plica is a kind of note, so there's a little unexpected polysemy for you. Documentum would be fine, except that it doesn't include .jpg files, does it? I mean, those aren't necessarily documents: they're pictures, of all sorts! ¶ And while we're at it, for 'article', I'm not sure I don't now prefer pagina instead of res. IacobusAmor 01:58, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, most of the people with whom I've talked online call it plica. We would be most understood, I feel, with this form.
I think pagina is better than res, too.--Ioshus (disp) 02:14, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, plica should mean folder. Interesting that it's also a type of note, but check out plica polonica for another meaning (rather gross in this particular case). Of course Ephemeris makes a great pun on this for their formerly regular collumn plica Polonica.
Since everybody has now become intrigued with this question, here's what a plica is: "an ornamenting tone, somewhat in the character of a grace note, to be inserted between the note to which it is attached and the next written note. According to the direction of the dash this ornamenting tone is above or below the written note"; and here's what Magister Lambert said of it: "Unde notandum est quod plica nihil aliud est quam signum dividens sonum in sono diverso per diversas vocum distantias, tam ascendendo quam descendendo, videlicet per semitonium et tonum, per semiditonum et ditonum, et per diatessaron et diapente. . . . Fit autem plica in voce per compositionem epiglotti cum repercussione gutturis subtiliter inclusa" (Willi Apel, The Notation of Polyphonic Music, 900–1600, p. 226). A goodly number of medieval musical terms (e.g., diatessaron and diapente) come from Greek musical theory. IacobusAmor 03:32, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
wow, now we really need to create Plica ;-) --UV 20:29, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I almost forgot: please allow me to reiterate that I think articles should be called commentationes or symbolae. Res is stupid. Pagina is OK, but note that en: makes a big deal of distinguishing "page" and "article"
--Iustinus 02:31, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Iacobus, I think documentum can be used for an image just as readily as "file" can. --Iustinus 03:23, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that a documentum (from doceo) is basically 'that which teaches', and by extension 'a lesson, an example for instruction' and hence 'a pattern, warning, proof, specimen'. IacobusAmor 03:36, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, actually commentatio makes me happiest.--Ioshus (disp) 02:35, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

One more comment.Lima : is a file, as applied to literary compositions, i. e. polishing, revision . perseus,notredame/whitaker.--Jondel 03:03, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Well of course that's a "nail-file" type file, even when applied to literary compositions. I mean, you already know that, but it's worth stating explicitly. --Iustinus 03:23, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Both plica and documentum sound fine to me for both pictures and regular files. --Rafaelgarcia 03:55, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys again, could you examie or translate from context and not so much the literal dictionary meaing. From perseus:

incipiam lima mordacius uti
My translation- I will start a folder (for) mordadius(not dative , I know) to use.
Shall I start to use a file more bitingly (and call every word under judgement)? This is Ovidii Ex Ponto, V.19-21--Ioshus (disp) 04:30, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
My translation is obviously way off. I apologize. But in English then what does 'file' in the above mean but the in the way it is used in a English. 'every word ' of what? a file as in nail file? or literary composition.--Jondel 04:49, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yes as in a nail file, or a larger shop file. And bitingly is much better than cuttingly on second look.--Ioshus (disp) 04:56, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Well I just need to mention these things.--Jondel 05:01, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

What does edit mean; but make polish or 'file' a collection of data?

It means, literally, to give out : e + dare. --Ioshus (disp) 04:30, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I meant the English 'to revise or correct, as a manuscript' (dictioary.com)--Jondel 04:49, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Revise is re + videre = to look (over) again.--Ioshus (disp) 04:56, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Or are you asking, Jondel, what the proper Latin for "edit," "revise" is? --Iustinus 16:03, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

'plica' strikes me as more as 'folder'.--Jondel 04:16, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

It is more folder, now that I think of it --Ioshus (disp) 04:30, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy you see that.--Jondel 04:49, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy you're happy...--Ioshus (disp) 04:56, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
:D--Jondel 05:03, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Happy, happy, happy we! IacobusAmor 16:28, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Traupman translates folder generally as integumentum, astrictorium and in computer context as cooperculum. He does not mention plica even though superficially it is closer to plicare than any of the above.--Rafaelgarcia 21:08, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Difficult load[fontem recensere]

Given the fact that, day by day, our Vicipaedia is growing more and more authoritative as a source of exemplary Latinitas, it is incumbent on us to be very circumspect about correct Latin on the presentation pages. Now, Latin onerare means 'to load X[LOCUS] with Y[ONUS]'. There are in principle two ways of construing onerare in Latin: either onerare X[LOCUS:acc] Y[ONUS:abl] or onerare Y[ONUS:acc] X[LOCUS:dat]; for instance, 'we loaded the ship with food' would be either navem cibo oneravimus or cibum navi oneravimus. (Notice that the latter type - basically a syntactic analogy from the verb imponere - is utterly rare in Latin texts.) But whenever a telegraphic ellipsis is used by dropping out one constituent word, the word that remains must be in the accusative, and the accusative always gets the interpretation X[LOCUS:acc]. So, whether we say onerare navem or onerare cibum, the noun gets interpreted as the locus, where something is loaded. That's partly why I didn't understand onerare fasciculos at the first blush. Onerare fasciculis would be more understandable (to me at least) but as an ellipsis is looks a bit bold.

Which brings me to ask: Could we find a better way to say 'to upload a file' in Latin. My proposal: imponere fasciculum (codicillum, data, datarium, file, ...), fasciculos in Communia imponere.

Well, now that I'm at it, let's discuss downloading as well. I've seen extrahere somewhere. What worries me a bit is that if extrahere is used in rendering 'to download' into Latin, probably the same verb would be needed when speaking about 'extracting a file' (from a compressed file, etc.). My proposal: depromere fasciculum.

I didn't write these lines in order to criticise or show off but in maximam gloriam Vicipaediae! --Neander 01:35, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

And certainly in gloriam Vicipaediae is how I'm taking it, Neander. Alot of our translations are old, and done by people without the best Latin. I mean old like years old. The current crew we have running this thing includes absolutely no one, who was here at our beginning. So if you see something that's wrong, or not necessarily wrong but iffy, please point it out.
That being said, let me see what Traupman says, and get back to you.
--Ioshus (disp) 02:18, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Documenta imponere[fontem recensere]

Thanks for the information on plica and scapus. Now I can see the metaphor. As to whether scapus means 'file' or 'folder', it may be interesting to notice that, in ordinary speech, also files are treated as folders; or perhaps more adequately put, both folders and files are sort of containers. We open and close folders as well as files. (Seen in this way, it might be somewhat amusing to say fasciculum aperire.)

Documentum is mot juste, methinks. In classical Latin, the meaning of documentum is rather general. A documentum is a physical object or event that is presented or suggested as indicating or evidencing some ideational content. For instance, Cicero (leg.agr. 1,27) adduces himself as a documentum of what happens when one lives an honourable life; whereas for Plautus, a good beating may give a documentum of what happens if somebody doesn't behave. What is important to notice is the physical and indexical character of a documentum. (Historically, the root doc- is the ablaut variant of dec-; cf. index, i.e. in-dec-s). The meaning 'textual document' evolved a few centuries later in juridical and religious contexts. But it's a natural actualisation of the potentialities of this word. So, I can see no reason why documentum couldn't be used to denote a JPG picture as well. The JPG reader (program) and the human end-user looking at the picture generated on the screen are both interpretative subjects trying, as they do, to make out the meaning of a structured physical representation of shareble ideational content. (Sorry for the academese jabberwocky! :-)

I propose the old fasciculos onerare and fasciculos in Communia onerare be replaced by documenta imponere and documenta in Communia imponere, respectively. But in fact I'm not sure I understand the performative function of the infinitives here. If they are supposed to be instructions, it might be more to the point to use imperative (impone documentum, documentum in Communia impone) or hortative subjunctive (imponas).

As to downloading a file from the net, my proposal: Documentum ex reti depromere; whereas 'to extract a file from a compressed file' might be Documentum ex documento compresso extrahere. --Neander 01:14, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to load things in the ablative? --Ioshus (disp) 01:21, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC) I'm an idiot...that was for the verb onerare...--Ioshus (disp) 01:26, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Actually, imponere does take in+abl, surprisingly enough. I'm not sure it's the mot juste though. A little bland. --Iustinus 01:46, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Traupman doesn't give a translation for upload but for download he gives "ex rete prehendere" and "expromere", the second of which is close to what Neander suggests "depromere". Comparing the two "depromere" sounds better. Whittaker translates depromere as:
depromo, depromere, deprompsi, depromptus  V (3rd) TRANS   [XXXCO]  
bring/draw out, fetch, produce (from container/store); bring/utter (info);
Fetch just the right idea for download!
I would suggest for upload "apponere" as Whittaker translates as:
appono, apponere, apposui, appositus  V (3rd) TRANS   [XXXAO]  
place near, set before/on table, serve up; put/apply/add to; appoint/assign;
Serve up just the right idea for upload!

--Rafaelgarcia 01:51, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but appono is "serve up" as in "put food on the table." I don't know if it has any meanings closer to "download." --Iustinus 02:07, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread: I suggest depromo = DOWNload but appono = UPload.
To place on the table for others to eat, that captures the idea of uploading files for me. You upload them to make them available for others to use.--Rafaelgarcia 02:15, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Iustine, we're both right. As a matter of fact, imponere contracts either ACC, DAT or ABL. But if it were allowed to Johann Philipp Krebs (Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache, s.v. Imponere) to decide, he'd probably decide in my favour.
Rafael, I think your proposal is worth considering. Apponere is at least as good as my imponere, maybe even better.
Let's continue thinktanking ... --Neander 02:32, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Commenting on a point raised above: I believe infinitives are fine. Actually we don't want imperatives (to whom are we giving orders?) -- we want a quick impersonal way to denote the activity, and there's nothing quicker or more impersonal than the infinitive. My guess (I haven't checked) is that many other-language Wikipedias would also use infinitives here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess you're right. There seems to be some variety (e.g. Finnish, Swedish, Italian use imperative; Estonian and Greek, a verbal substantive) but a good many languages have infinitive. So, why not Latin as well. --Neander 15:45, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

De Bellis Stellaribus[fontem recensere]

You might be interested in this. THough I fear some of you might be inspired to write articles based on these hyperciceronian translations ;) --Iustinus 16:58, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

(Actually I'm just jealous, because my Star Wars translations remain unknown ;) --Iustinus 16:59, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC) )
I was amused that they called Princess Leia "filius regis", when she's no such thing. Both her birth mother and her adoptive mother were queens, and her adoptive father was both viceroy and prince, but neither of her fathers was a king. —Angr 17:49, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Index dictionariorum[fontem recensere]

Do we maintain a list of online English-Latin dictionaries? The Perseus Project doesn't seem to have any (just a way to search for English words in Lewis & Short, which isn't actually terribly helpful). Also, when was it decided to translate "article" as res? Searching through res in Lewis & Short I don't find anything that comes even close. I would have thought libellus came closer to what we mean. —Angr 15:24, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Maybe res in the sense of "subject", "lemma" in some other wikipedias. "Article" is sometimes rendered as "symbolum", so in VOX LATINA. --Alex1011 08:05, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The word most intelligible to the most people is probably pagina. IacobusAmor 16:17, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Well, pagina is more appropriately "page" in the widest sense. At Wikipedia, every editable page is a pagina regardless of which namespace it's in. (Which does imply that the Save button should be changed from Servare hanc rem to Servare hanc paginam or simply Servare.) Any answers to my first question, for a decent online English-Latin dictionary, or an onwiki list of them? —Angr 17:47, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Whitaker's Words program is decent though not perfect. --Rafaelgarcia 18:11, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! What about offline? Is there a "classic" English-Latin dictionary? One that everyone interested in Latin composition has to have? —Angr 19:31, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I like just servare, myself, too. On that not, we could change monstrare praevisum to praevidere.--Ioshus (disp) 18:19, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Scientia Naturae ->Scientia Naturalis[fontem recensere]

I think it would be better said Scientia Naturalis rather than Scientia Naturae on the Pagina prima. Doing so would seem to be in better style with rennaisance authors like Newton.--Rafaelgarcia 15:43, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I know this is a difficult field conceptually and terminologically, and I doubt whether much can be gained by quoting dictionaries. Basically I feel Scientia Naturalis strives for establishing a system of objective knowledge (systema doctrinale) by wielding systematic methods in a replicable way; whereas Scientia Naturae might rather mean subjective, implicit knowledge (peritia) of nature that grows in everybody as a result or process of everyday experience, academic studies &c. If I had to render into Latin 'Natural sciences are instrumental in increasing our knowledge of nature', I might come up with Scientiae naturales sunt utiles ad nostram scientiam naturae augendam (rather than Scientiae naturae sunt utiles ad nostram scientiam naturalem augendam). --Neander 01:26, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Nicely put.--Rafaelgarcia 01:40, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Glossarium nominorum dignitatumque saeculi XVIII[fontem recensere]

Could somebody clever fix the blunder with nominorum in the title of this article? IacobusAmor 19:29, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know about somebody clever, but I have fixed it.--Ioshus (disp) 19:32, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I suppose then it's relative: you're cleverer than I am! IacobusAmor 19:33, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Word for article[fontem recensere]

THe below is copy of the text from above discussion in the Taberna under Latin word for file. I thought this subject is important enough to have its own section with another chance for commentary.--Rafaelgarcia 01:43, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot: please allow me to reiterate that I think articles should be called commentationes or symbolae. Res is stupid. Pagina is OK, but note that en: makes a big deal of distinguishing "page" and "article"
--Iustinus 02:31, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Iacobus, I think documentum can be used for an image just as readily as "file" can. --Iustinus 03:23, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that a documentum (from doceo) is basically 'that which teaches', and by extension 'a lesson, an example for instruction' and hence 'a pattern, warning, proof, specimen'. IacobusAmor 03:36, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, actually commentatio makes me happiest.--Ioshus (disp) 02:35, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Words gives capitulum as the better translation for article in an encyclopedia/book.

capitulum, capituli  N (2nd) N     2 2  N   [EEXBE]  
chapter/article (in book); religious/cathedral chapter, chapter meeting/house;

It seems to me the best choice for the english term article. Given the internet nature of our encyclopedia pagina works as well as pagina since each capitulum is presented as a page.. However, an article can consist of several pages in a printed book. And some pagina at the Vicipaedia are rather indices and tabula rather than capitula. Also paginae disputationis can't be described as capitula either.--Rafaelgarcia 00:06, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Commentatio would seem to me to be the best word for a news article or a scientific paper, in that the term implies a first hand report of something. I think of Caesar's Commentarii de Bella Gallica and of the word Commentarium which means notebook.--Rafaelgarcia 13:57, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think almost anything is better than Res. The Ciceronians will object to capitulum, however, on the grounds that in Classical Latin it only means "little head" or "capital in architecture". —Angr 19:55, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full entry from Lewis and short. I don't think that it being not Ciceronian latin is a big deal. After all the Cicero didn't have the internet either.--Rafaelgarcia 20:17, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

căpĭtŭlum , i, n. dim. [caput] .
     I. Lit., a small head, of man or beast: operto capitulo bibere, Plaut. Curc. 2, 3, 14 .-- Hence, in the lang. of comedy, for a man, Plaut. As. 2, 4, 89; and as a term of endearment: o capitulum lepidissimum, most charming creature, Ter. Eun. 3, 3, 25 : haedi, Cels. 2, 22 .--
           B. Of plants: caepae, Col. 11, 3, 15 : sarmenti, id. 3, 77, 4 : torcularii, Cato, R. R. 18, 4 al. (perh. also ramulorum, Plin. 24, 19, 113, § 173; 27, 5, 20, § 37; cf. capitellum).--
     II. Transf. 
           A. In architecture. 
                 1. The capital or chapiter of a column, Vitr. 3, 3; 4, 1; Plin. 36, 23, 56, § 178 sq.-- 
                 2. The capital of a triglyph, Vitr. 4, 3, 8.-- 
                 3. The cross-beam of warlike engines, Vitr. 1, 1; 10, 17.--
           B. In late Lat., a covering for the head of females, Isid. Orig. 19, 31, 3; cf. Varr. ap. Non. p. 542, 30.--
           C. Also late Lat., a prominent part or division of a writing, a chapter, section, Tert. adv. Jud. 9, 19; Hier. in Ezech. c. 47 fin.--
           D. A section of a law, Cod. Just. 5, 37, 28.--
           E. The raising of recruits (as an office), Cod. Th. 11, 16, 15
Maybe the ancient Romans had the same problem that's now bogging us down. Therefore they picked the noun thema, -atis from Greek. What do you think? The second best, imho, would be articulus, in spite of the fact that the meaning 'article' isn't attested in Latin. I can imagine two arguments in its favour: (1) articulus 'article' may be regarded as a semantic re-borrowing from the cultural sphere (e.g. the Wikipedia project) that uses adaptations of Latin articulus in the sense of 'article'. That's sort of what has happened in Greek, too. For the phenomenon, see e.g. Gregory Watson's paper on 'Evidence of lexical re-borrowing in the spoken English of first generation Finnish Australians' (Nordic Journal of English Studies 1, 2002, 65-88); (2) The sense 'article' of articulus may be considered a natural metaphor, if we look upon our Vicipaedia as a huge hierarchically organised or articulated corpus (scientiae), textual organism with textual limbs. --Neander 23:49, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone yet make a case for why articulus or thema should be preferred over capitulum. At the very least capitulum is attested in medieval latin as meaning article. Unlike capitulum for which one finds an entry in dictionaries with the meaning article, there is no dictionary with entries for thema and articulus that have article as a possible meaning. --Rafaelgarcia 01:13, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Although I guess the analogy of book and chapter to body and joints isn't completely lost on me either, so that the choose to use articulus wouldn't be bizarre.--Rafaelgarcia 01:46, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I have before me two books by Guilielmus Gilbertus, De Magnete and De mundo nostro sublunari. After looking at these books I am so much the more convinced that the right word for article is capitulum. The word for chapter in a book is caput and capitulum is a small chapter, i.e. an article, within the book. Commentatio on the other hand is the better word for newspaper or magazine article because those are more of a commentary or report.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, gentlemen, I rather wholeheartedly reject articulus. I appreciate the metaphor, but I think it is a little bit of a stretch. Even in the sense of that metaphor, nodus might be better than articulus. Furthermore we have waged bloody war on its use here, with UV, Iustinus, and I spending several man hours to hunt it down and destroy it. I would, and I admit it's selfish, prefer not to have wasted all that time. Further still, I think there is error in thinking that commentatio is more apt for article than article is itself; which is exactly what you are trying to make articulus mean, when it, in fact and practice, doesn't.
Now, as for what to call it: Not sure... as it was said above, res is stupid (though, not, in my opinion, worse than articulus...at least res can mean just about anything...). Pagina seems ok, but the distinction above that was raised between "article" and "page" makes a clear case for saving pagina for the latter. Capitulum is clever, but not Ciceronian, as we said, and if we can find a suitable Classical word, I think nos opportet This brings us, I really feel, to something more like commentatio. That's what it means, a description about a thing. Traupman is no help for this, Perseus is down (like freaking usual), and I packed up my OLD because I'm moving next week (btw, I will be avaailable for the next two weeks, but probably pretty infrequently. the third week I will not be here, at all), so, at this hour, I'm hard pressed to think up anything else. Maybe Iustinus will pop online soon, and I can pester him to check a few things...
I repeat, at the end of all this, capitulum is clever, I just wish it were Classical-er...
--Ioshus (disp) 05:08, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of tiring everyone out yet with another comment on this (I guess all of us can sympathize with Joshus spending too much time fretting over a single word), I can't resist but point out that caput in the sense of chapter isn't Ciceronian either and yet just about every modern latin text out there has chapters or parts labelled either as capita or capitula. That said I will be happy with whatever you all choose.--Rafaelgarcia 07:09, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Articulus can mean "article" in the sense of "article of a treaty," but I don't think that really applies here. The argument that it's a cultural borrowing would be more apt if no encyclopedias were ever written in Latin. Which of course makes me wonder what attested words we have to describe articles in encyclopedias, but I don't know off hand (other than vox as in sub voce and of course lemma). Capitulum... eeeeeh makes more sense to me if we use this for "section" (a question that was never resolved, as I recall), but I suppose those are generally so small as to be capitilla ;) . Thema is an interesting suggestion. But the fact that a commentatio is a "report" is hardly a problem, as wikipedia articles are reports. Anyway, here's what David Morgan has:

08 article (piece of writing in a newspaper or other periodical) opusculum, i n., commentatio, onis f., symbola, ae f. (a "contribution" to a periodical or jointly authored book); (section of a statute, treaty, etc.) articulus, i (Dig.; ;;2)

--Iustinus 21:14, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Ok, did my best to defend articulus, but sometimes the best isn't enough. Nice to see that thema is considered interesting (if that is a favourable report - my professor used to call interesting everything he didn't like... :-) But symbola is interesting too: The Norwegian journal of Greek and Latin studies is Symbolae Osloenses, articles, contributions from Oslo. But if we want to be really Ciceronian, I guess we're left with commentatio (which seems to stress more the process than the result; cf. Cic.Tusc. 1,74 'philosophorum vita, ut ait idem (sc. Socrates), commentatio mortis est') - or thema. (Or what about commentarius?) --Neander 22:21, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
As usual I'm pressed for time, so to be brief: no interesting was not meant to be negative, and I forgot to comment that the pursuit of Cicero is all too often taken too far. I have no problem with the word capitulum in itself but I don't think it really works here. And I confess that the main reason I so heavily favor commentatio is that that is the word generally used at the Conventiculum. --Iustinus 22:49, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with commentatio. (And if we still keep on discussing, I'll next propose res ... ;-) --Neander 22:59, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Lemma is nice, and it fits a little tab much better than a great long word like commentatio. —Angr 23:41, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
See the Euler archive; they apparently refer to articles as commentarii.--Rafaelgarcia 23:23, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
They also use commentatio for articles/scientific papers. I think that is a lot of support for commentatio/commentarius for article. I'm not sure of which of the two is better or how they are using the two terms differently.--Rafaelgarcia 23:47, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Commentarius is uaully for longer works, like the whole De Bello Gallico...--Ioshus (disp) 01:19, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Is something wrong with caput? My eighteenth-century dictionary gives this for one of its definitions: "A chapter, a particular, an article, or clause." And here's Cicero using it in that sense: "Qui, quod secundo capite scriptum est, non meminit in tertio." IacobusAmor 00:18, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
"Et is orbem terrarum constringit novis legibus qui, quod in secundo capite scriptum est, non meminit in tertio?" (De lege agraria 2,26). But Cicero is clearly referring to a clause or section in the law. It now looks like we'd have to select either commentarius or commentatio. I can live with both but prefer commentarius (for the reason given in my post 22:21, 15 Iunii 2007). Besides, the old and venerable classical journal (since 1894) Eos calls its papers or articles by this name: Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum. Commentarius doesn't necessarily refer to a long work. Rather, a commentarius is a diary entry. Notice that Caesar wrote Commentarii (not Commentarius) de bello Gallico. --Neander 01:57, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "a clause or section in the law": if the U.S. constitution were our guide, caput would then be the right word, as the constitution's clauses are subdivisions of its sections (so named in the document), and its sections are subdivisions of its articles (so named in the document). In other words, the primary subdivisions of an independent whole text (such as a constitution, a book, or an encyclopedia) seem to be its capita. ¶ This commentarius may be OK, but it has too many syllables for comfort. From what I see in the dictionary, it would be preferable to commentatio. IacobusAmor 04:08, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is for certain true, but from what I've seen caput and capitulum occur in books/treatises written by one person, denoting parts of a longer cohesive work. But on the other hand with the scientific papers commentarius and commentatio denote separate contributions in a general area, ie physics, generally written by different people with unrelated titles. I don't feel I've perused the literature enough at this point to be certain if this distinction holds true, however.--Rafaelgarcia 02:00, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I noticed is that caput and capitula are typically numbered whereas commentatio and commentarii are not.--Rafaelgarcia 17:33, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

My German-Modern Latin dictionary (published by the Vatican) gives the following for the German Artikel:

1 articulus, i, m [cum de scriptionis alicuius vel de sermonis partitione agitur].
2 commentatio, onis, f; commentatiuncula, ae, f [cum de brevi agitur scriptione].

(as well as merx for a different meaning of Artikel). Under 1, I'm assuming "sermonis partitio" is a part of speech (i.e. the definite article is an articulus), but I'm having a hard time figuring out the distinction between "scriptio aliqua" in 1 and "brevis scriptio" in 2. —Angr 08:00, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Help on fixing a Grammar error[fontem recensere]

ON the page Societas humana the following formula {{communia|Category:Society}} whose output when placed on this page is

Commons-logo.svg Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Taberna/Tabularium 5 spectant.

THe text after ad should be in the accusative but I am unable to find the variable or formula to correct it. Help? Thanks,--Rafaelgarcia 05:32, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I would change it so that it would say instead "...ad paginam "Taberna" spectant. ..". I would hope that the quotations would be enough to indicate that the contents are not necessarily declined properly and that paginam would serve to indicate the case intended.--Rafaelgarcia 18:46, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I'd do as the Romans did with proper nouns and decline it: "ad paginam Tabernam spectant." ¶ But the interesting thing here is that Taberna seems to be a pagina, while articles are now to be capitula. Are we agreed to maintain that distinction? Did we agree that capitulum is best for article? IacobusAmor 18:51, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think the trouble is that the formula appears to take the name of whatever pagina it is on and then places that name in the slot after ad. If you had to decline it to the accusative then you'd have to anticipate and program all the possible declensions in formula, which would seem to me to be a nightmare to do. Perhaps the formula can be modified so that there is a slot for the user to decline the name of the page. --Rafaelgarcia 19:13, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Since the formula applies to all pages even if they are not 'articles' I'm concerned here that using capitulum would potentially get you in trouble here too. I don't know if everyone agrees with capitulum as the best translation for encyclopedia article but I vote for it.--Rafaelgarcia 19:13, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this paginam thing only really makes sense, here. Everywhere else, it means that Communia have images relating to the specific thing that the pagina is about.--Ioshus (disp) 05:11, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

You can actually fix this one yourself, Rafael, there is another variable you can add, ecce: {{communia|Category:Society|Tabernam}} =>

Commons-logo.svg Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Tabernam spectant.

If you don't add the second variable, the formula just takes the page name. Cheers! --Ioshus (disp) 19:26, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Yup works like a charm!--Rafaelgarcia 20:11, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Numbers over One-Thousand[fontem recensere]

On Vicipaedia, should I use the British/(American?) "1,000.156" way of writing numbers over 1,000 or the European "1.000,156"?--Harrissimo

This is something we haven't addressed fully. Personally, I'm for the British style, not because I'm used to it, but because it, to me, makes more sense; I grew up using Imperial units of measurement, but I definitely prefer metric. Again, because it makes more sense to me. I encourage the British system, but given the ratio of Europeans to Americans/Brits on Vicipaedia, I may be outvoted.--Ioshus (disp) 17:22, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I vote for the scientific international SI system of not using either , or . to separate thousands or thousandths and using either . or , to separate whole versus fractional part. So, according to this international standard you should write either 1 000.156 or 1 000,156. See also
Rule #16 at NIST website
Bureau Internationale des Ponds et Mesures
--Rafaelgarcia 17:40, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the former of those two, for sure.--Ioshus (disp) 17:45, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
For once, this is something Brits and Americans have in common. AFAIK all English speakers use a period/full stop for a decimal point (though a raised dot may also be used in Britain), and no English speakers use it as a thousands separator. However, this is the Latin Wikipedia, and we can't assume that everyone here is a native English speaker! As for separating thousands, I like using a space rather than the traditional comma, because it's clearer, but it's more hassle because you really have to use a nonbreaking space (&nbsp;) rather than a regular space, which means typing six characters instead of just hitting the space bar. So that's an argument in favor of the comma, that the comma is easier to input than a nonbreaking space. —Angr 20:03, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Although not technically correct using regular spaces is OK in my opinion.--Rafaelgarcia 20:12, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Best is to follow SI exactly and use thin spaces, coded as "&" and "thinsp;" (making a million look like 1 000 000, not like 1 000 000). IacobusAmor 20:21, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the whole point is to follow SI, right?--Ioshus (disp) 05:19, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
But if you want to use thin spaces, you have to use the narrow nonbreaking space at &#8239;, otherwise your number will split across line breaks. A million then looks like 1 000 000. —Angr 20:39, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it would it be within the realm of the doable to put a special button for &#8239; on the top of the editor window? It would certainly facilitate rendering of such numbers.--Rafaelgarcia 21:04, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly doable; we just need an admin to add it to MediaWiki:Edittools. —Angr 21:23, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
On my screen, 1 000 000 prints with squares for thinspaces, whereas 1 000 000 prints correctly. IacobusAmor 21:47, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Iacobe, do I understand correctly that 1 000 000 displays incorrectly on your screen but 1 000 000 does display correctly? Rafaelgarcia 23:29, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
That's correct: 1 000 000 has squares where thinspaces should be, and 1 000 000 has thinspaces. IacobusAmor 00:00, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Then I think we should avoid 8239 symbol and go with thinsp. If we ask the administrators to add an extra button it should be for thinsp.--Rafaelgarcia 00:31, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I have asked UV to have a look at this discussion. We'll have our button soon, boys!!!--Ioshus (disp) 05:16, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
If &#8239; doesn't work for everyone, I think &nbsp; should be used instead. Not having numbers split across lines is IMO far more important than using narrow spaces instead of full ones. —Angr 21:07, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Should we ask the administrator to put a button for just &nbsp; ? or for both &#8239; and &nbsp; then? These each display respectively as 1 000 000 and 1 000 000. I can hardly see any difference on my screen.--Rafaelgarcia 00:12, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Toolbar buttons added for &nbsp; and &thinsp;. A force-reload might be necessary before you can see them. --UV 19:57, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, UV! --Ioshus (disp) 20:19, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)


policy[fontem recensere]

I have started Vicipaedia:Orthographia mensurarum. It is horribly incomplete...--Ioshus (disp) 06:31, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

If we adopt the SI convention then the number of articles formula which gives 130 691 on the mainpage needs to be modified to put a thin space in place of the comma.--Rafaelgarcia 02:11, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, another task for UV...--Ioshus (disp) 03:57, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
This requires a change to the Latin localization part of the MediaWiki software. It's an easy thing to do for the MediaWiki developers, but we should reach a consensus first whether we prefer the decimal point (1 234.56) or the decimal comma (1 234,56) before requesting the change. --UV 19:57, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
<<crosses fingers and prays for the decimal point...>> --Ioshus (disp) 20:16, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I have no personal preference, but there is a certain benefit of having uniformity of notation for Vicipaedia. I don't think it really matters which convention we end up using as long as we're consistent about it. Some data: Newton and Euler used commas but Gauss used points. Some more data: most international publications including italian and European journals, being non English, use commas. Given that Vicipaedia is associated with Rome, this might favor the use of commas here.--Rafaelgarcia 23:42, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, "associated with Rome" perhaps historically, but right now it's incorporated in Florida, where decimal points are not decimal commas (and, for that matter, commas before and are de rigueur) ! IacobusAmor 00:22, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I would argue for sake of efficiency, here (absolute repugnance of the decimal comma aside). I think, although I may be corrected, that the majority of our articles have . already. It's going to be bad enough, as it were, to amend the spaces. --Ioshus (disp) 01:03, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think Caesar would agree expediency indeed is an important factor.:)--Rafaelgarcia 02:45, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, the re should have been persoluta, before anything else, according to the big JC! =] --Ioshus (disp) 02:52, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment, not being much of a mathematician. However, I see one advantage to the decimal point: it is completely unambiguous. It marks off the decimals handily and nobody in the world uses it to separate thousands. And the same goes for space: it divides off the thousands handily and nobody uses a space as a decimal marker. Whereas the fullstop/period and the comma are both ambiguous: therefore, I say, avoid them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean by "decimal point" if not fullstop/period? Do you mean the raised dot, as in 3·14156? Isn't that ambiguous in that the same symbol is often used for multiplication? —Angr 18:27, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
According to SI the point should be on the line: 3.14159 is correct but 3·14156 is incorrect.--Rafaelgarcia 18:35, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the raised dot, the one SI says is incorrect. Ah well. And I suppose you can find ambiguity in every symbol if you look hard enough. No further comments! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:12, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
So I assume there is a slight preference for Gauss, Caesar, the decimal point, and the convenience of having to copyedit probably less pages over Newton, Euler, the decimal comma, probably a bit more work, and my personal preference, being a European? --UV 21:57, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
In the end it is arbitrary which one we choose. Obviously both choices are so equal in merit that SI couldn't choose between them and I'm sure they tried hard. Because Latin plays the role of an international language but does not have clear precedent for commas versus points, that puts us in a tough spot of having to initiate a tradition of our own. I will be happy with either convention.--Rafaelgarcia 22:22, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I requested the software change, let's see how quickly the developers will react. --UV 21:40, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Implemented in rev:23646. The developers did not use &thinsp; but &nbsp; for fear that the former might not be displayed properly in some older browsers. But this should not prevent us from using &thinsp; when we write numbers. Greetings, --UV 21:36, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

See also Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione (latine)#Punctum Decimale et Comma decimalis.

Darts[fontem recensere]

Would I be right to say "iacula" would be the right way to say Darts (as in the game) from the singular iaculum and could I have some suggestions for the terms: dartboard, bullseye, score (verb and noun) e.g. He scored 60 and The maximum possible score is 180? The article would probably need grammar attention afterwards as well... ----Harrissimo 21:24, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Traupman gives spiculum, -i, n., but I'm not sure if he intends that for the game, also. He gives scopus medius for bull'seye and for "to hit the bullseye" he gives the verb feriro, ferire. Morgan may have suggestions for "score" and "dartboard". Maybe you could ask Iustinus to look for you. --Ioshus (disp) 22:07, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
For 'dart', my 18th-century dictionary gives:
"Jaculum, telum, pilum, spiculum. ¶ Out of reach of the darts, ab ictu telorum tutus."
It adds: "A dart thrown, Missile, jaculum" and "A stringed dart, Hasta anientata." IacobusAmor 12:51, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
And, not being 18th century, we will write it iaculum rather than jaculum, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

OK, keep in mind that most English-Latin dictionaries were either written before the 20th century, or are so conservative that they may as well have been. And so when they talk about "darts" they really mean javelins. I definitely think the word you want is spiculum. (Though I hear that Leonardo Da Vinci at one point uses the word dardi in a Latin text—see Petrus Montius—even that refers to javelins). David Morgan doesn't give anything for darts. For score all he suggests is punctum or numerus, and if you use either of those terms be sure to make it clear form context what exactly you mean. For dartboard I would suggest tabula spicularia vel sim. --Iustinus 19:43, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

This is now the umpteenth time I've seen "Traupman" mentioned on this page. Searching Amazon.com for "Traupman Latin" I found several possibilities, but none that lept out at me as the obvious one. What book are people referring to when they say "Traupman"? —Angr 21:09, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Usually Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency, but sometimes the Bantam dictionary. --Iustinus 21:17, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can certainly be referring to either when I mention Traupman. I think we have Iohannes Traupman...--Ioshus (disp) 22:12, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
And do you recommend both to someone looking to improve his Latin composition skills? I'm not that interested in oral proficiency per se, but I can imagine such a book would be useful for writing too. —Angr 23:35, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's a great small dictionary, I have been using it throughout college. And the oral proficiency book has great theme specific glossaries. You can get the dictionary at any decent bookstore, but you have to order the oral proficiency.--Ioshus (disp) 23:38, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I live in Germany, so I'll have to order the dictionary as well. For some reason they only have Latin-German/German-Latin dictionaries in bookstores here. I do have a German-Latin dictionary of Modern Latin published by the Vatican, but it's really only for neologisms. If you want to know how to say "binary", that's the place to look, but if you've suddenly forgotten how to say "dog", you won't find it. I have recently ordered Bradley's Arnold Latin Prose Composition from Amazon, but IIRC it doesn't have much of a dictionary. —Angr 23:46, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Latinitas hodierna[fontem recensere]

Ecce fontes Latinitatis hodiernae:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/2007/commencement/mcnamara.html. IacobusAmor 12:51, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/06/princeton_grads_hear_speech_bu.html IacobusAmor 16:04, 18 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Computatri[fontem recensere]

Could someone change the link on pagina prima under 'technologia' from 'computatri' to 'computatrum'? (unless, of course, there is a good reason for the genitive) Montivagus 03:34, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Factumst. Gratias!--Ioshus (disp) 03:45, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
In fact Computatri was probably my typo. Apologies. I changed computatrum to computatra (plural) to better suit Vehicula and other parts of the encyclopedia that have the plural, because it emphasizes the idea of "not any particular computer."--Rafaelgarcia 04:11, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

paginae primae formulae[fontem recensere]

Volumun formulas pro pagina prima protegere (probatur p plus patiendeum paene praeter Poloniam!!!), sicut aliae Vicipaediae? --Ioshus (disp) 03:41, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Vero credo formulas pretegendas sunt ne vandalismus patiamur. At, quod occurit apud Poloniam? Vandalismus? Non vidi eum.--Rafaelgarcia 04:17, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Sed formula scintu non protegendam esse ut Xaverius possit eam edere. --Rafaelgarcia 06:21, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Rogabo UV nisi ad usorum praecipuum protectionem definiam.--Ioshus (disp) 00:19, 20 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Et in Polonia nullum accidit...modo fuit allitteratio...--Ioshus (disp) 00:19, 20 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Yorkshire (and possibly other regions)[fontem recensere]

I have come across the problem of finding a name for Yorkshire. I have looked quite hard but, after trawling through many lists, I still can't find a suitable name that is not just a term for northern England or a tribal area. Would something along the lines of Regio Eboraci (Region of York) be acceptable? --Harrissimo 17:24, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Here you find more than one name for Yorkshire: (Graesse). You have just to search for "Yorkshire", however then also all place names which are in Yorkshire appear. And according to this formula, which you find in Devonia, Isuria is already a red link for Yorkshire. --Alex1011 17:42, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Election Notice[fontem recensere]

If you are able, please translate this notice to as many possible languages and post it anywhere applicable.

The Wikimedia Election Committee is accepting candidates for the 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. Please see [2] for more information.

There is still time for a new candidate to be considered for election, and you may now endorse the candidate of your choice (up to 3 candidates) on the endorsements page, [3]. Please read the instructions carefully prior to endorsing. If you can translate the instructions, please do.

If you have any questions, please contact any member of the election committee, who are listed here [4].

Posted on behalf of the Election Committee,
Philippe

Romance[fontem recensere]

I need a Latin name for this literary genre (or rather, I suppose, a series of genres which have had the same name). Du Cange suggests "romanus" (cf. French roman) and "romancium" (cf. Spanish romance): does anyone have a preference, or a different view? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:15, 23 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

OK, the PONS gives commenticia fabula, fabula Romanensis, fabulosa narratio, fabula Milesia. Calepinus Novus suggests fabula Romanica (citing N. Gross's translation of Baron Muchhausen), fabula Romancia (citing S Albert's translation of The Night in Lisbon). Morgan gives a long entry which I will send you by email. --Iustinus 21:44, 23 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Oh, also Petrus Australianus gives "fabulosa heroïcorum facinorum historia, citing "(Ains.)", which I suspect means Ainsworth's Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Compendiarus. --Iustinus 21:52, 23 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm a bit confused about what you are looking to translate: it is Romance novel or Romantic novel? In english these are very different things. "Romance novels" are superficial love stories; "Romantic novels" are ones that emphasize heroicism and free will.--Rafaelgarcia 22:35, 23 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of that distinction in English before. Very useful! But my current focus is more on the medieval beginnings than the Mills-and-Boon end of the series: I began an article on Christianus de Trecis, whose poems are called romans by himself and romances in English. I needed a Latin word for the genre of which he was among the founders. I can certainly begin by describing it as a sort of "mythistoria", which we use for "novel", but I also need something more specific: it collapses history to call these poems novels. I quite like "fabula romanensis/romanica". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 24 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
In Castillian Spanish a "Romance" is a very different thing, and I was quite confused:
gritos dan en el Real
"¡A don Sancho han malherido,
muerto le ha Vellido Dolfos
gran traición ha cometido!"
Desde dentro de Zamora
va dando voces y gritos
"Tiempo era, doña Urraca,
de cumplir lo prometido"
--Xaverius 09:56, 24 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's it, the Spanish "romances" are different again; like the French ones, they are in 8-syllable lines, but the rhyme scheme is different (and maybe the typical length and typical story line is different too!). "Romance" has had a whole succession of meanings. Therefore, I guess, no single Latin equivalent will do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:01, 24 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish romances have this ryme: 8a/8Ø/8a/8Ø/8a/8Ø etc...--Xaverius 12:02, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Crazy anonymous user?[fontem recensere]

THe user with ip address 151.41.216.60 has been creating and emptying pages all over the place making a mess. Can something be done to encourage him to get a user name and be more contenientous?--Rafaelgarcia 16:56, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Two different things! 1: we can put the formula {{Invitatio}} on the page Disputatio usoris:151.41.216.60. That occasionally works. I'll do it. 2: if he makes enough mess (and, yes, deleting a talk page is bad behaviour), we could block the address. That often works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:37, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Image[fontem recensere]

Due to Wikimedia's policy regarding copyrighted materials, they are going to remove the SI Brochure cover from Wikimedia. Putting it there doesn't violate copyrights but Wikimedia requires that the copyright holder allow the image to be modified for any purpose and SI has a restriction that one not modify the image. Is it OK with Vicipaedia to upload these kinds of files?

the image: [5]
Copyright licence: [6]
Link to original site: [7]

They, i.e. the BIPM, say: "The BIPM holds copyright on the textual and multimedia information available on this website, which includes titles, slogans, logos and images, unless otherwise stated. Reproduction is authorised, except where otherwise stated, if the source is acknowledged and if the information reproduced is not subject to any distortion, addition or mutilation. Copyright of any third-party materials found on this website must also be respected."

I don't believe there is any copyright issue involved by uploading it to Vicipaedia.--Rafaelgarcia 20:56, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

In principle, it is not OK to upload such material to vicipaedia or any wikimedia project. The aim of Vicipaedia and other wikimedia projects is to create a place of free knowledge: free for everyone to use or redistribute, including for commercial purposes, and free for everyone to modify. Therefore, licenses that do not allow (commercial) use, that do not allow redistribution, or that do not allow modification are in principle not accepted on wikimedia projects. (There is one exception: the creation of an EDP as described on wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy, but I personally would advocate either no EDP at all or a rather narrow EDP, allowing only certain nonfree [but fairuse] material that is of special value to a Latin encyclopedia, much more than to an encyclopedia in a different language - which in my view is not the case with the SI book cover). Greetings, --UV 21:48, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I removed the image. I'm not sure I agree with the Wikimedia policy in these kind of cases though. Who would ever want to modify the image of the SI book cover? I can't imagine there ever being someone who would want to for any purpose.Rafaelgarcia 23:30, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean, Rafael. It is often unbearable to play by the rules. This is why people take steroids who ride bikes, and pay money for a football side to sandbag a match. Of course, this is a much less important, in the grand scheme of things, than buying 3 points (at least per my book), but it is, unfortunately, a rule. I certainly agree with you, we should be able, for the sake of all that is just in this world, to display the image of the International System of Measurement!!!. But I am reminded of the slippery slope . . . one transgression of policy begets another, all the more easily.--Ioshus (disp) 03:49, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I do understand your point very well – it is not easy to imagine a situation in which one would want to modify the picture of the book cover. Still, we are contributing to a wikimedia project hosted on the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation, so if they tell us they do not wish certain types of copyrighted content on their servers (and, in requiring the freedom of modification, they are in line with the majority of other advocates of free content), we should respect this, even if the rule admittedly does not fit the actual picture in question too well … Greetings, --UV 19:17, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Reproduction is authorised . . . if the information reproduced is not subject to any distortion."—One wonders what "any distortion" means here. My understanding of U.S. copyright & trademark law, which applies in Florida (where Wikipedia is incorporated), is that everybody is free to distort quoted copyrighted words, logos, and trademarks, as by, say, changing their fonts. For example, "Coca-Cola" is a trademark, but we don't have to set it in the quasi cursive italics by which the company often displays it: setting it roman in Verdana, or Vivaldi, or Vrinda, would be a distortion that's perfectly legal. So what does "any distortion" mean in the BIPM's quoted pronouncement? IacobusAmor 00:54, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

This is part of a blanket statement covering everything at the website, including the brochure itself. They just don't want people misrepresenting what is there. The point is moot, however, as per above.--Rafaelgarcia 12:51, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Merger?[fontem recensere]

If I merge Categoria:Aevum antiquitatis renascentis into Categoria:Renascentia, will anyone object? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Not really...--Xaverius 12:00, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Hardly.--Ioshus (disp) 12:18, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it now. Admittedly the longer name is much more classical, but the shorter name is, well, shorter (hence easier to type) and has more members. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Burgundiones and other stuff[fontem recensere]

I have seen that we have several Burgundius, -i where we should have Burgundio, -nis. I have changed all the ones I could track, but if you find one, change it.

Secondly, these Burgundiones fought with Attila the battle of the Catalaunian fields. I was thinking that the page could be proelium apud campos Catalaunicos, but the only reference I can find is Isidore: campis Catalaunicis (cf Theodoricus I (rex Visigothorum)). Gregory (of Tours) does not seem to help much (here, at the end of the chapter). Do you think my guess is sensible?

Thirdly, somehow related. After the discussion we've had on Haeresis Ariana, should we a) make a page on Haeresis and move this one to Arianismus? --Xaverius 19:30, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Haeresis and Arianismus? Sounds good to me.
Ammianus Marcellinus describes the battle (27.2), but the text is not helpful at suggesting a name; the summary of book 27 offers "apud Catalaunos". Yes, I think, I would combine this evidence with Isidore and I would reach exactly your result: proelium apud campos Catalaunicos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Haeresis and Arianismus would certainly make Ioshus contentus...--Ioshus (disp) 19:57, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

Hibernia et Irlandia[fontem recensere]

According to Hibernia, "Irlandia est patria; Hibernia, insula." Does that mean we should aim toward someday having separate articles on Irlandia (corresponding to en:Republic of Ireland) and Hibernia (corresponding to en:Ireland)? —Angr 20:44, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

The intention was to remove that sentence. There used to be a separate article Irlandia, but evidence, supported by Irish users, told us that the word Irlandia should not really exist. However, it may well be that a separate article about the Republic as a political entity (e.g. Res Publica Hiberniae?) would be a good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about "should not really exist"; it certainly does exist in Late Latin ("Ab Anglis Irlandia appellatur, quasi Erinterra", "primos gressus in Irlandia fecit, Dublini enim per Chatolicos rex proclamatus est sicque tota insula pro eius partibus stetit". But I would certainly be surprised if the claim could be supported that Hibernia is only a geographical term, Irlandia only a political one. —Angr 21:27, 28 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I reworded it here; see what you think. I also notice that there are separate categories Categoria:Hibernia and Categoria:Irlandia; that should probably be fixed too. —Angr 21:45, 28 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

byrialbot[fontem recensere]

I have asked Adam for a bot flag, hope no one minds. --Ioshus (disp) 01:29, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

I took the liberty of updating the pagina mensis formula for this month. However, I think we need an administrator to update the Pagina Prima.--Rafaelgarcia 05:48, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

What exactly needs modified? If it doesn't work on your computer, try a forced reload. --Ioshus (disp) 05:49, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes. Silly me! Thanks--Rafaelgarcia 05:54, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
No prob!--Ioshus (disp) 05:56, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

rusticatio reminder[fontem recensere]

I will be completely unavailable this next week. There is to be no internet apud Rusticationem illam Virginianam. I will come back with pictures, and notes to fill out the article, promise. =] Facite valeatis! --Ioshus (disp) 04:55, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

¡Te tomaremos la palabra! Pásalo bien =] --Xaverius 09:25, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Names[fontem recensere]

I've been asked [8] for a translation of the following names:

Can somebody help, please? Thanks, --Rolandus 19:44, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Gaëtan is the good Latin name Caietanus. Fernand is Ferdinand, which is of Germanic origin, but doubtless Latinized as Ferdinandus. Aristide is the Greek Aristides. Lionel is originally a diminutive of Leo, so maybe Leonillus? At least one person has used the Latin name Leonillus, but that doesn't prove he went by Lionel in the vernacular (though it's likely). —Angr 21:28, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Actually, googling around it looks like Leonellus was more common as a first name. —Angr 22:04, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I see I forgot Armand. Cardinal Richelieu is called Armandus. —Angr 06:16, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
so, you would use the same name for Fernand and Ferdinand?? -- Thoma D. 06:37, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
That's what I would do. Sometimes there are alternative spellings in one modern language that correspond to a single form in other languages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
So would I; though there does seem to have been a Fernandus Payne. —Angr 16:43, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Praemium[fontem recensere]

Sign language G.svg

Please vote for the praemium: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia_Vicipaedianis#Neander.

--Xaverius 21:54, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

petitio[fontem recensere]

Currently the Vatican does not have a Latin version of their website interface. Annula Llewellyn has started a petition on iPetitions to convince Benedictus to support the creation of a Latin version.

Please copy/paste this link (I couldn't actually make a blue link, due to the spam filter...)

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pro_lingua_latina/

and sign your agreement with this proposal.

Thanks!

--Ioscius (disp) 03:46, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Just posting another comment to give this petition some buzz. Please come! --Ioscius (disp) 12:50, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Added to the spamfilter's whitelist. Now we can make a blue link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pro_lingua_latina/ --UV 16:50, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Regions[fontem recensere]

Salvete Potores Tabernae! I have been trying to translate the Finnish regions and have managed to find sources or names for most of them. However, I'm uncertain about a few:

  • Finland Proper (English Wikipedia Page). Could just literally translate as S.W. Finland (which I'm not sure how to say).
  • Kymenlaakso (English Wikipedia Page). Maybe Kymmenedalens (Swedish name) But with a letter "C" at the beginning and -ia at the end (like Tammerforsia). P.S. would a "y" be acceptable in that context?
  • Pirkanmaa (English Wikipedia Page). The English name is Tampere region, so I thought just Tammerforsia (Regio).
  • Päijänne Tavastia (English Wikipedia Page). Presuming the Lake Päijänne is Lacus Paiania, it could be Tavastia Paianiensis.

Can you help me? --Harrissimo 00:09, 12 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Such tough questions ... I have next to nothing to give, but let's try:

  • Varsinais-Suomi/Egentliga Finland: Hofmann's Lexicon Universale s.v. Finnonia gives Finnia propria.
  • Kymenlaakso/Kymmenedalen: Let's take Kymi/Kymmene first. Kymi is the name of the big river, one of the first inhabited areas of Finland, and from the earliest times, a multi-ethnic one. Kymi is obviously an early loan-word from Germanic *kwem- 'come' (*kwemiyaz or something, 'easy to come'; cf. German be-quem). The Swedish word Kymmene may come from the same Germanic source, but I can't be sure (no one can...). But the same source with somewhat different transmissions doesn't seem totally implausible. As to Kymijoki / Kymmene älv and Kyminlaakso /Kymmenedalen, I'd translate Kymiensis or Kymmenensis fluvius and Kymiensis vallis/Kymmenensis vallis, respectively. Unfortunately, I don't know any reliable source for Kymiensis, but Kymmenensis does occur in a Swedish document (please google for "Kymmenensis" and see what happens).
  • Pirkanmaa has been translated from Sw. Birkaland; Bircalandia doesn't look much sillier than Finlandia, does it, but I haven't found a realiable source.
  • Päijänne may be a very old Sami word, but it is difficult to etymologise. I have nothing against Lacus Paiania, though it sounds like Greek... --Neander 20:18, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles[fontem recensere]

We don't have an article here on the album The Beatles yet, but if we did, what would we call "The White Album" in Latin? "Album album"? —Angr 11:42, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Valde rideo...--Ioscius (disp) 12:25, 13 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Item ego ... sed risu deposito "Album candidum" propono. --Neander 02:24, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
And while we're on bad puns... if the Ancient Greek Wikipedia ever has an article on Horsepower, they'll have to call it "Ἱπποκράτης". —Angr 08:58, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I call that a good pun ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:31, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, dude, that's funny, I don't care who you are =]
As for intial question, I have to differ, Neander. This isn't really The Shining Splendid Album, just The White Album. Album Album is more semantically accurate, mea quidem sententia, and might be the type of oddity/pun/humor we ought to promote, not restrain. Who says an encyclopaedia need be stuffy and boring? What are your thoughts?--Ioscius (disp) 05:05, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's not be grouches. The most general adjective for 'white' is probably albus. The glossary in William T. Stearn's Botanical Latin (necessarily Neolatin) says albus is dull white, but candidus is glossy white. The album itself, as I wistfully handle and look at it, appears more glossy than dull, but not decisively so, and the pun still makes a form of albus attractive. For the white jersey worn by birotarii (as in the Tour de France), candidus might better capture the silken shimmering of the spandex (elastane) fabric, at least as it looks on television. IacobusAmor 10:42, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm all for puns, the more absurd the better! The White Album had no official name, just white covers: album to see, candidum to listen. So there's no obstacle for us to make its Latin name better and funnier than the English one that seems to be unimaginatively followed by speakers of other languages. Let it be: Album Album! --Neander 22:19, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Famous inhabitants of ...[fontem recensere]

Please look at Disputatio:Derthona. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:37, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing_redirects_--_part_II[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Redirectio#Categorizing_redirects_--_part_II. --Rolandus 13:07, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Names_from_auctores_neolatini[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Index_nominum#Names_from_auctores_neolatini. --Rolandus 15:24, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Literaturliste[fontem recensere]

On what page should we put a link like this: http://web.fu-berlin.de/klassphi/didaktik/latloq.htm ? --Rolandus 15:34, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

George Sand[fontem recensere]

Quid putatis? Georgius Sand aut Georgia Sand? Fuit femina, sed consulto pseudonymate masculo usa est. —Angr 18:36, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Georgia, sine dubio.--Ioscius (disp) 18:38, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Well, not completely sine dubio, or I wouldn't have asked. I was actually thinking it would be appropriate to use Georgius but make it take feminine agreement in her case (like the handful of feminine 2nd declension nouns): "Georgius Sand anno 1804 Lutetiae nata est et anno 1876 Nohanti mortua est". —Angr 18:53, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I think, we must take the masculine form for the name, otherwise she would have called herself Georgina or something like that. --Alex1011 19:56, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Do as you must, but I cringe at the thought. I rather imagine a Roman laughing at a woman named Georgius... George is one thing in English, Georgius quite another in Latin...--Ioscius (disp) 20:11, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I would say to make people cringe of laugh was exactly what George Sand had in mind by taking a masculine name. This effect is to be translated into Latin. --Alex1011 20:19, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
You know him better than I, it seems =] --Ioscius (disp) 20:21, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the lady in question took the pseudonym "George Sand" because she had made up her mind to LARP a man (a life-long LARP). Using "Georgia" would certainly water down this semiotic game. Could we adopt as our policy to write pseudonyms as such, litteraliter? After all, Baroness Dudevant certainly wanted to be called "George Sand", not "Georgius Sand". If this doesn't sound a good idea, then "Georgius" should do the job, but it's better, whenever possible, to avoid gender clashes in the text. Such clashes might sometimes create unintended puns. --Neander 21:32, 14 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm with Neander: we have to stick with her choice, George Sand. As Ioscius points out, this name is not only masculine but also English (the French would be Georges). We can't unpick a complex web like that.
But when it comes to the biography, I don't see any problem. We give her birth name, which makes it clear she's female, and we continue from that point. She didn't change sex. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem calling her Georgius and referring to her with the pronouns ea and quae. IacobusAmor 13:07, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ludi et certamina athletica[fontem recensere]

It occurs to me that it could be useful, and a matter of pride in variatious localities, to show the most notable results of the moveable athletic events that have occurred in each named location: Olympics, Pan-American games, bicycling tours of various countries (e.g., France, Italy, Spain), and so on. For the Tour de France, I've worked up a table that can be seen at Le Grand-Bornand. If people like it, I'll update it as the tour goes on. Obviously, a similar table would be useful for each set of games, and I'll work up something for this year's Tour de France eventually. IacobusAmor 13:07, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Place names[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Usoris:Andy85719#Name Changes/mutationes nominis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:23, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Translation of city names[fontem recensere]

Salve! Neander and I have been having a discussion about how best to translate a city name. Neander believes in using J, K and accented letters (as in most modern European languages), whereas I have been translating names into a declinable form. For example I translated Ekenäs as Ecenas when I can't find a source (eventhough there is a source for Ekenäs). Which way is correct? Please help. --Harrissimo 21:11, 15 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

One point is this. There is a good reason not to use accented characters in headings, since we are writing for an international audience. Accented characters make the headings more difficult to type and to search for.
In general I think we have been getting closer to the view that we should use the full (26-letter) alphabet if we are copying/transcribing a name in another language (i.e. if there is no attested Latin name).
Let's see what others say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
At least the English Wiki is being written also for an international audience, and if they tolerate diacritics (e.g. Jämsä, Jämsänkoski, Järvenpää, Mäntsälä, etc), why shouldn't we? Besides, there are a lot of precedents in our Vicipaedia as well, witness e.g. Caietanus de Rochebouët, Armandus Fallières, Petrus Bérégovoy, Ernestus Thälmann, Georgius Gänswein, Alphonsus López Trujillo, Petrus Rubianus Sáenz, Gerardus Schröder, Christophorus Schönborn, Ivus Patenôtre. I'm sure Finnish and Swedish names with diacritics would fare quite well in this fine company. Witness, furthermore: Ioannes Sandoval Íñiguez, Świętochłowice. --Neander 21:03, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
For me, I agree -- I think those names look naked without their diacritics. But the point about typing/searching problems is a real one. On the English Wikipedia it seems to be dealt with by making redirects, pretty systematically, from the unaccented form of every accented name. Which is very handy for the user and maybe the ideal method, but it means a lot of redirects. Are we up to it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 17 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'll revert the names to the natural names, but add redirects (as in without ä, ö, å) so non-Finns can find them more easily. I guess I should just do the same titles as English articles and prefer the majority language? --Harrissimo 21:42, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly up to it. It won't take over 60 seconds to make a redirect and I can't think of any other way around it. --Harrissimo 17:27, 17 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Then let's do it. Where no Latin name exists, the full alphabet with correct accents. Where necessary I will do the same thing with French place names. They look wrong without their accents.
Now here's a useful thing. Rolandus from time to time does a "dump", a list of problem entries. These include entries containing accented characters. So, when Rolandus does a dump, we can check our entries to make sure we have done un-accented redirects for them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:07, 20 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

14 milia[fontem recensere]

Credo paginam Vosegus (praefectura Franciae) numero 14,000 esse! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 16 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Musicians[fontem recensere]

Hi, I just wanted to ask if there's a template for articles on musicians as exists on the English Wikipedia (Example on the English Wikipedia Bobby Darin page), and what the word most commonly used for "musician" is here. Iordanus Loreni 09:11, 17 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Template I don't know about...but musicus is musician.--Ioscius (disp) 13:37, 17 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Constitution/Constitutio[fontem recensere]

Salve, I have been thinking about writing an article about the U.S. Constitution and I was wondering if anyone has heard or has a Latin translation of the U.S. Constitution. I have looked everywhere and even contacted the National Archives but they have the constitution translated many languages but not Latin. Some have pointed to the Bill of Rights that is translated into Latin but that link is defunct. Any help would be appreciated because in the article, there are special terms that need to be translated like "double jeopardy," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," even possibly the introduction "We the people" followed by a very long sentence. Also, there needs to be words used that we have not come to a consensus on like "Senate" in the sense of the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives. I have only heard of legifera to refer to the legislature, but I am not sure if that word is the correct word for the legislative body of a country. Any help on this would be most appreciated. Also, we should further standardize our terminology for a variety of terms about government forms i.e. democracy, communism, and dictatorship (which has a different meaning than my be implied if translated directly into Latin "dictator.") Does anyone know of a Latin dictionary of modern political terms. Like if want to write that Strom Thurmond is know for the longest filibuster in U.S. history over Civil Rights Act in 1957. How would I say filibuster since I think it is from Dutch and means "pirate?" If a parliament was dissolved am I to say that it "solutus est?" I suppose I am asking a lot of questions so I leave it at that. Just something to think about as we head toward 20,000 pages.

P.S. I'm going to also have to work on U.S. Presidents also. I found the most information on Zachary Taylor, a president that no one even knows about; there is one line on Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. Andy85719 01:27, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it . . . --Ioscius (disp) 02:33, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Either of the nineteenth-century Latin biographies of George Washington—Francis Glass (1790–1824), A Life of George Washington in Latin Prose, and William Lance (1791–1840), Georgii Washingtonis Vita (1836)—should attest many useful general terms and proper names (e.g., right there in the title, Washington, -onis; so where on earth did Traupman get Vashingtonia from? and why should we respect it when we have alternate attestations from people who were alive while George Washington himself was alive?). IacobusAmor 03:26, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking. I believe that the best way to find and come to a consensus on political terminology is to start from scratch. I have scoured the Internet for Latin equivalents for modern world political terminology. I think it simply doesn't exist because many political and economical terms used today were never even dreamed of like: political blogosphere. Therefore, I think that new terms should be registered in a special area, like verba nova. Here one could check if an equivalent expression has been created. Cave, for this would only be used if a word cannot be found anywhere. If a word is found from a source, the person would be notified of the cited source and the created word would be removed from verba nova and replaced with the word with the source cited. In this way, work can proceed on pages with dubious word translations and later be corrected if a cited word is found. Eventually, we might also have a very comprehensive dictionary of modern latin. Puto dum scribo.Andy85719 05:00, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. We already have a {{Dubsig}} that we place after a dubious? word. We could do the same, or something similar, for these neologisms. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
la.wiktionary has a {{novsig}} that gets placed when someone finds they have to resort to a inventing a neologism* on the spot. —Mucius Tever 17:02, 21 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea, Andy85719, as long as people are prepared to abandon their cherished neologisms when earlier-attested forms turn up. But watch out when you propose starting "from scratch," as Ioscius, Iustinus, and other loyal guardians of authenticity will quickly take notice! IacobusAmor 11:58, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Ioscius arrives, ears at full attention . . . Proceed . . . with caution =] --Ioscius (disp) 13:11, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Praefecturae Franciae[fontem recensere]

I have just turned the last French département from red to blue! (See Tabula administrativa Franciae). These are very brief articles as yet, but they all have maps, and all the names are reliable (I think). At the same time (because I had to research the names) I have made in-progress stubs for all the département capitals that hadn't got articles already. Where no one gets in ahead of me, I will now gradually edit and upgrade those city entries. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:26, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

And no small feat! Thanks, Andrew. If I knew a word of French besides Jacques Cousteau, I would certainly have helped more =] --Ioscius (disp) 13:13, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Your labors, Andrew, rival those of Hercules. Macte! IacobusAmor 13:51, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
N'exagérons pas ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)