Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 9

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Index

hidden categories[fontem recensere]

Normally, at the bottom of each article, the categories that this article belongs to are displayed.

There are two types of categories:

As en.wikipedia, de.wikipedia and surely a few other wikipedias already do, I propose to tag all categories of the latter type with __HIDDENCAT__, so that only those categories that belong to the former type will be visible immediately. This should help to spot articles where categories of the former type are missing. Detailed information on this feature is available at en:Category:Hidden categories. Any objections? --UV 22:41, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Generally this is a good feature and it seems that a tagging can be easily changed. However, especially for the Categoria:1000 paginae I'd suggest to not hide the category. These 1000 pages should be among our best maintained pages and it could motivate the reader to switch into edit mode when he realizes that a page is part of this special collection. We could also add a link to the Categoria:1000 paginae on our Pagina prima. --Rolandus 07:21, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
So perhaps we should keep certain "good quality" categories visible and hide "bad quality/stub" maintenance categories, because these are just means for writing the encyclopedia but do not serve our readers too much ("oh, I so much enjoyed reading a stub about a town, let's read another stub about a town now …")? --UV 22:20, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Dump/latest[fontem recensere]

After a long time, page Vicipaedia:Dump/latest has been updated again. --Rolandus 08:32, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Logical redirects[fontem recensere]

Please see Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Culture. --Rolandus 12:07, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Pope fan[fontem recensere]

Say could another Magistratus look into the recent activities of usor:200.102.13.158‎/ Usor:200.215.40.3 (apparently from Brazil). He is pushing his POV regarding the pope as the only true head of the christianity and the roman catholic church as the only catholic church. In particular he is introducing numerous POV redirects to the pope and the church. What should we do?--Rafaelgarcia 20:44, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion: As long as he does not edit real pages and does not use terms which someone might want to use in another sense, I think this is not a big problem. If I create a redirect from Bugs Bunny IIPapa, I guess you will never realize this ... unless you are watching the Nuper mutata ;-) --Rolandus 20:59, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps relevant is that we occasionally see, and probably always shall see, ardent religionists from that sect pop up to remove Romana from the name of the Ecclesia Catholica Romana. This change seems to reflect a religious claim, though I fail to see why, since I've read in publications by the church itself that its proper name (in English) is Roman Catholic Church, and indeed authoritative Latin sources (like Radio Finland) often call it the Sancta Ecclesia Romana. Somebody in the past couple of days, perhaps this 200.215.40.3, has taken the Romana out of several articles, and he may have succeeded in getting those changes to stick, as it will be hard to find them now, what with all the changes recently made by UV's bot. IacobusAmor 21:08, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Her contributions can be found here: Specialis:Conlationes/200.215.40.3. Simply quaerere for "Usor:200.215.40.3" --Rolandus 21:29, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yea, but see, that's not the usor I was thinking of, the one who made changes in the article on the Ateneo in the Philippines (and other commentaria). These people are legion! IacobusAmor 21:32, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I've looked it up: the one I was thinking of was: 201.2.236.153. IacobusAmor 21:34, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Admins could also semi-protect these articles. Anonymous users will not be able to edit them, but registered users will not have any disadvantages. --Rolandus 21:36, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
But more than a hundred articles may be at risk from this kind of attack, and we may not be able to anticipate which ones are most in danger. Anonymous usor 201.2.236.153 changed fourteen articles, mostly removing the Romana (which in many of them is still gone because nobody has restored it). In one article, he/she removed the Anglican Church, saying "Adoratio Eucharistica prohibetur in anglicana secta," but I put it back in, since I've seen the adoratio eucharistica in an Episcopal church myself, and the website of the Episcopal Church specifically says its allowed. Because Latin remains the language of the Roman church, Vicipaedia is particularly vulnerable to the attentions of sectarian advocates. IacobusAmor 12:53, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Then there's the anonymous usor 201.2.235.112, who in the discretiva page Pontifex Maximus keeps trying to put the pope first, in violation of customary lexicographical principles. IacobusAmor 23:36, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
And tonight, noster "Kyrios" is back at it. IacobusAmor 03:02, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
According to German wikip only in countries where there are Protestants, the church uses reluctantly and for pragmatic reasons "Roman catholic". "The" church normally sees "Roman catholic" as a contradictio in adiecto, if you are "catholic", universal, you cannot be at the same time only "Roman". "Sacra Romana Ecclesia" (in documents also abbreviated S. R. E.) is not exactly the same as "Catholica Romana". --Alex1011 21:48, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Maybe then we should change the title of the article to Sancta Ecclesia Romana. Pope John Paul II in at least one encyclical calls it the Ecclesia Romana. What does the Vatican have to say about this? IacobusAmor 21:56, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Last I knew, the Pope was considered (by his followers) to be both the head of the Catholic Church and the head of the Roman Church, the Roman Church being one part of the Catholic Church. Aren't the Eastern Sees, though not actually in communion with Rome, supposed to be part of the Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church? I might be a few centuries out of whack on this, though... If I'm right, wouldn't it mean that the Roman Catholic Church was one aspect (considered preeminent by Catholics) of the Catholic Church? So it would be a legitimate title... Jack Mitchell 04:55, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Catechism is officially called CATECHISMUS CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE (vide [1]) which the Vatican itself translates as CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (vide [2]). Also note that the English wiki says "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, is..." --Secundus Zephyrus 05:27, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
In that document they also profess to be the ONLY church, which would seem to fly in the face of facts. Obviously this is an document of faith declaring the they are the only church with a true connection to jesus and the apostles. Following the logic of the document that they are the only church, it would have been self contradictory to say that they are the Roman church. Perhaps the way to say it is "Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae quam suae fideles unicam Catholicam Ecclesiam veram putant..."--Rafaelgarcia 10:27, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
It is not a contradiction if "Romana" is interpreted as "having its principal see in Rome". --Fabullus 12:28, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is a series of nested articles. (1) Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia would cover the broadest range, that phrase being in the Nicene Creed and therefore acceptable to all Christians who believe the statements in the Nicene Creed, including (Roman) Catholics, Anglicans & Episcopalians, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and members of other churches that claim apostolic succession. (2) Ecclesia Catholica would cover the Roman Catholic Church and all churches in communion with it, including especially the Eastern Catholic Churches, like the Maronites (Ecclesia Maronitarum) and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. (3) Ecclesia Catholica Romana would then cover only the church governed directly by Rome. Would this plan dissatisfy the least number of readers? If so, certain POV claims in the present article Ecclesia Catholica would have to be rewritten (as they should be anyway). IacobusAmor 20:57, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Good plan! (3) could also be called Ecclesia Latina as in the German wikipedia in order to reduce confusion to a minimum (if we don't want unsuspecting readers starting a new debate on why we don't merge (2) and (3)). It may be worth considering whether (1) could just be included in Ecclesia or Religio Christiana, since it would take up most of either anyway. We could then create a redirect from Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia (which, incidentally, may or may not deserve uppercase as a quote rather than a proper name). PS. I am tempted to add a redirect Bugs Bunny II -> Papa. I suppose nobody would object?--Ceylon 21:13, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Specialis:Paginae_speciales[fontem recensere]

Page Specialis:Paginae_speciales has got headers. --Rolandus 20:36, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

But they're in English :( --Ceylon 20:40, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
They can be translated, see Vicipaedia:AllmessagesSpecialis:Nuntia_systematis :-) --Rolandus 20:48, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I don't really get the hang of it. Here are my suggestions, feel free to add them if they seem okay to you:
Maintenance reports -> Notitiae curatoriae
Login / sign up -> Apertio conventorum
Recent changes and logs -> Novissima mutata et acta
Media reports and uploads -> Notitiae de fasciculis
Users and rights -> Usores eorumque potestates
Pages in need of work -> Paginae quae labore indigent
High use pages -> Paginae saepius adhibitae
Other special pages -> Ceterae paginae speciales. --Ceylon 21:35, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I fixed them. THere are so many more.--Rafaelgarcia 21:58, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Stipulae magnitudo[fontem recensere]

How big is a stipula? Gihad has 2941 octets, and Ceylon suggests that an article that has grown to that size is no longer a stipula, but our Gihad is a dwarf compared with en:Jihad, which has 69,060. In Meta's formula for comparing wikis, we don't get extra points until our articles exceed 10,000 (not including interwiki links). So would 10,000 be a reasonable figure? Or should we use a sliding (and therefore always arguable) scale, where 2941 would be too big to be a stipula for a text on the topic of Gihad or, say, Fafa, but would be a substipula—hardly big enough to qualify for stipula-status—on the topic of Civitates Foederatae Americae? IacobusAmor 22:45, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed recently, and the current orthodoxy is set out at Vicipaedia:Hierarchia paginarum. The specific answer suggested there to your question is "4 lines of text"!
We want extra points, certainly, but I don't see that we need to adjust the definition of a stipula to achieve that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:59, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Oh. OK. I must have missed that discussion! IacobusAmor 23:37, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Expressio difficilis[fontem recensere]

Hi!!

Could you help me with this? I don't know how to translate the following expressions:

  • accountancy
  • functionaries who specialized in accountancy

Thx in advance!!!

--Le K-li 04:42, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

PONS (dictionarium):
  • ratio conficienda
  • rationcinator, tabularius/a

--Alex1011 07:10, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Stella argentea?[fontem recensere]

Hoc cogito causa quaestionum Iacobi Amoris supra sub titulo "Stipulae magnitudo". Habemus paginas mensis (duodecim per annum), longas, optimas, Latinitate fere perfecta, stellis aureis incoronatas. Sed exstant multae paginae apud Vicipaediam, valde bonae, utiles, curiosae, imaginibus munitae, sed breviores, Latinitate aut perfecta aut leviter melioranda. Eae paginae numquam paginae mensis erunt. Possumus seriem paginarum argentearum incipere? -- fortasse paginarum hebdomadis? Quid dicunt alii?

I thought of this because of Iacobus Amor's question above. We have pages of the month (exactly 12 a year!): long, excellent, with (almost) perfect Latin, topped with a gold star. But we now have lots of pages that are very good, handy, interesting, illustrated, but shorter; sometimes with very good Latin, sometimes needing a bit of improvement. They will never be pages of the month. Can we start a silver series (pages of the week maybe)? What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these can be made part of "scin tu?"--Rafaelgarcia 13:08, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this years ago. I think we are in a better position these days than when I first suggested it. --Ioscius (disp) 16:38, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Spaniards already do something similar: they have es:Wikipedia:Artículos destacados (gold star) and es:Wikipedia:Artículos buenos (green tick). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:28, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The Germans also: Lesenswerte Artikel. I agree that we should have some kind of earmarking for these good pages - maybe we could mention them in the upcoming collaboration portal. If we go ahead maybe we could call them paginae delectae? And maybe we could use this blue star? Harrissimo 16:39, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC). Harrissimo 16:39, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
Yes, indeed, they could be a feature of the collaboration portal. Saying, roughly, these are among our good pages -- but still open to improvement --
The Romanians seem to have a feature where a different "good" page, out of a chosen list, is displayed to you every time you look at their pagina prima. I wonder if anyone can see how that works, and I wonder whether we could try the same system here for a list of "paginae delectae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
It would not be too difficult to copy their system. Just like we have teasers at {{PaginaMensis/Aprilis 2008}}, {{PaginaMensis/Maii 2008}} etc., they have teasers like Formula:PaginaBona/1, Formula:PaginaBona/2, …, Formula:PaginaBona/150. Every ten seconds, a different number is calculated so that whenever the main page server cache happens to be purged, a different teaser is included in the main page. --UV 21:57, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Left navigation[fontem recensere]

Sometimes the left navigation seems to change temporarily. At the moment I am missing the link to the Taberna. --Rolandus 04:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I likewise cannot see the Taberna link right now on the left pane.--Rafaelgarcia 05:10, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Translating the Wiki messages to Latin[fontem recensere]

See Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_7#Betawiki:_better_support_for_your_language_in_MediaWiki. --Rolandus 10:42, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Or http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate ... 772 messages are yet untranslated ;-) --Rolandus 10:47, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I have been working at it. I must say, however, it is easier to translate here and then move the translations to betawiki, then delete here when the new command is refreshed. There you do not always have enough information/context to be able to figure out what the command or phrase is saying, whereas here you can see where the phrase fits in. --Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
THis is unrelated to why the "taberna" link disappeared isn't it?--Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is unrelated. The disappearing "taberna" link is a server-side caching problem of MediaWiki:Sidebar that sometimes appears for whatever reason.
As for translations at Betawiki=Translatewiki, a priority would be, e. g. to localize the new Babel extension (not yet active on wikimedia wikis), at least the last messages (the ones with "-n" at the end, replace "English" with "Lingua Latina"), that might in the future save us the need to have hundreds of Babel templates (while still allowing custom Babel templates to override the default babel boxes provided by the extension). --UV 21:01, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

De finibus bonorum[fontem recensere]

IacobusAmor has started an interesting discussion on his userpage about whether the ultimate 'vision' of Vicipaedia would be an encyclopaedia including something in the range of 5,000,000 articles. This matters especially for the amount of internal redlinks we create (e.g. on Venus). My own idea is that Vicipaedia is a small project and there are no indications that it will grow to anything comparable to the English wikipedia during our lifetimes or indeed ever. Based on this assumption, my 'vision' would be to rather work towards a goal of maybe 200,000 articles (at the current growth rate, this might take around 50 years!), and put increasing emphasis on expanding and improving articles as opposed to creating new one-line stubs. What does everybody think?--Ceylon 13:16, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should, while we are small (which will be for a long time yet), ensure that as many of our pages as possible are of a high quality. I propose we should adopt a form of immediatism (which is influenced by our gravitas rule). A goal for us should be to get all of the 1000 pages upto pagina value. Then other pages can follow and our weight and quality overall can rise (sources need to be more important in our future too). This shouldn't stop links for the future on disambiguations like Venus and we can still create new pages.
I am highly anti-one-line stub, I think it undermines our project, makes us look bad, will take years for anybody to even care about some of those pages, let alone have the ability to improve them in Latin. Why doesn't the author care enough about the subject to even write a four sentence article on them? That is why I am more immediatist than eventualist but we still have eventualists here - I have violated my own rules and written quite short stubs before.
Maybe a compromisal between eventualists and immediatists would be to encourage the Collaboration Portal (I will work on it soon) and for only pages above stub value to qualify as paginae fortuitae. Harrissimo 16:18, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
A high priority should be boosting the number of essential articles that have more than 10,000 octets and more than 30,000 octets. Why? See the discussions on Rolandus's pages and the work that Rolandus has been doing to point out which articles these are: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Rolandus/Sizes. IacobusAmor 16:46, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
That you're grossly underestimating the future! The rate of technological change is exponential (see en:Ray Kurzweil), and humanity has nearly reached the point where the slope goes asymptotically vertical. There's no reason why, in a hundred years, or maybe in a few decades, every known human will have a bio-page in all the wikis—and "every known human" will include many millions of dead humans whose names are unknown but whose existence will be inferred from comparison of available DNA (Julius Caesar may turn out to be reconstructible as human #Zmnaf-@2689-ghidd2798-nvgh213, and we may know the "names" of all his ancestors back for thousands of generations). [If one may be allowed to "think out loud."] So that gets us up to the order of magnitude of 10,000,000,000 articles, and then we mustn't leave out articles on their social interrelationships, their joint histories, big & small. Not to mention, long before that total is attained, articles on 25,000,000 (or is it 40,000,000?) estimated species of nonnhuman animals. But let's not stop with species: let's include varieties and other subspecies! And then there are the plants. And the chemical compounds. And so on. The future is vaster than we can imagine! IacobusAmor 13:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
As for the growth of Latin, I have no doubt that once all human brains are electronically linked (whether before or after our descendants shall have opted out of wetware altogether and gone beyond the limitations set by the bodies that nature has provided them) and the full computing power of humanity is unleashed, there will come a time (perhaps lasting a microsecond or two) when all human beings, just for the fun of it, think in Latin. You just never know! IacobusAmor 13:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
That frankly would be a frightening prospect. The likelihood is that, what with all that exponential growth and Brave New World aspirations, humanity will be gone in a hundred years.--Ceylon 14:25, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I very much doubt about this ever happening. Many before Iacobus have expressed belief in such things as transhumanism, at least in my memory, and the rate of technological change has always lagged significantly behind the idea. The physical cause of free will is completely unknown at present, so that we do not have a credible basis for projecting if this is ever going to be possible. Nevertheless, "stream" technology (referring to the scifi notion) will probably catch on within our lifetimes.--Rafaelgarcia 15:41, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
De futuro nemo potest certe praedicere. Egomet omnibus aequalibus mallo vicipaediam parvam quam magnam, sed completam. Demum commentationes de omnibus urbibus, homnibus praeclaris, civitatibus, notionibus philosophicis, cultibus, scientiisque habendae sunt. Quot sunt tales? Nescio. Et nescio utrum paginae de omnibus oppidis parvis, homnibus, et notione habendae est.
Hae metae per aetates mutari possunt, ut mea sententia nobis oportet hodie ambigue vadere, ut laborem innecessarum futurum evitemus. Paginae inter mille quas oportet omnibus habere, elaborandae sunt primum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:56, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I think there are at least the following types of pages:
  1. pages we should have (e. g. these 1000 pages)
  2. pages which are useful to have (e. g. all pages which have interwiki links)
  3. pages at least some users want to have and care about them
I think we should not be afraid of having too many pages, even if they are short. Short pages can be useful, too. And short pages have the tendency to grow. Sometimes this will take years. --Rolandus 14:45, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

latinitas huius rei?[fontem recensere]

avete amici,

hac nocte rursus ante rendi apparatum sedi et, quod rebus, quas custodio, accidit, videre volui. fortasse, amici, quid accideret, quaeritis. Doleo, quod mihi vos haec respondendum est: sunt perditae. Etiam atque etiam res peiores reddi vidi. paulatim me hic versari taedet.
Quare vos quaero, quando latinitatis magister verus praeficeretur, ut tandem paginam heberemus, quam legere et qua uti licet. Sunt, qui scriberent velut scriptores medii aevi. Nobis Ciceronem aequandum est, ut laudem nobis pareremus, ut vicipaedia nostra magni aestimaretur.
Posco igitur, amici, multos homines periti hanc paginam custodire et curare. Nimirum vicipaediam laborem hominorum, qui omnia sua sponte faciunt, esse cognovi, sed doleo, quod vicipaedia, quia omnes scribunt, quod volunt, iocus malus facta est. Vae! Peius est. Quamquam interdum alii res bonas faciunt, hae in malum vertuntur, quod alii se lingua mala uti ignorant.
Consilium vicipaediae latinae casus adversus est, cum lingua latina lingua morta sit et nullus homo ea uti cognoverit. Opto, ne me damnetis. In vos invehi nolo, sed, quantopere caput demitterem, exponere volo.
valete

Hesiod 21:25, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Equidem spem amittere nolo, quamvis me paeniteat barbarae multarum commentationum Latinitatis, quia conscius sum meae ipsius imbecillitatis sub specie Ciceronis. Quem - da veniam - hominorum aut morta scripsisse vix simile est veri.--Ceylon 21:38, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Complures nostrum tirones sunt, at cotidie meliores melioresque fiunt. Ne desperaveris, amice! --Neander 22:18, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Ita est, amici. Hoc compendium summum non esse moleste fero. Cum vicipaediam latinam ortam esse audissem, maxime exsultavi. Nunc vero omnis res labi video, quare maestus sim. Ingenium Ciceronis adipisci non possum, sed hereditatem defendere volo. Cum me non solus esse sciam, bono animo sum. Id studemus igitur, amici, diligenter cogitare, quae corrigenda, quae scribenda, quae appetenda sunt. Gratiam vobis, qui me adhortati sitis, habeo.
Hesiod 23:22, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Et apud Wikipediam Anglicam sunt qui Anglice aegre scribunt. Alii editores corrigunt. Hic pauci sumus; opus enim longum incepimus. Credo Hesiodum errare qui dicit omnis res labi ... sed, ut vidimus, errare humanum est! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Quibus de latinitate nostra desperat oportet videre nostram vicipaediam anni anterioris et componere illam cum vicipaedia praesente. Progressio est evidens, et de commentatione et de latinitate harum commentationum.--Rafaelgarcia 21:39, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Special characters[fontem recensere]

There is a tendency, to use special characters. Maybe, because computers make it possible now, to do so. However, it seems that all special characters could be omited with nearly no impact. In our actual collection there would be just 2 "real" ambiguities:

  1. Pele ... pedilusor
  2. Thalia ... cantrix

And then (surprise!) 4 letters in several variants:

  1. A
  2. N
  3. O
  4. U

I checked this by converting UTF-8 to ASCII-code and then removing these characters: '"',"'","`","~" (because Christophorus Schönborn would result in Christophorus Sch"onborn).

Examples for the ASCII-titles:

Shouldn't we have redirects from the ASCII-title for all our pages which contain special characters? --Rolandus 14:40, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and not so long ago Harrissimo and I made some redirects of this kind. I guess the problem items show up in your new Dump? I'd better have a look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I could make a check whether each page with special characters does have a twin with an ASCII-title. --Rolandus 15:19, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I've been experimenting along these lines with Samoan, which (like many Polynesian languages) has two special usages: macrons for long vowels (just like Latin), and an upside-down comma for the glottal stop. Most native speakers omit these characters most of the time, even when (as with Pele, cited above) they make a real difference in meaning. However, there's a good chance that people will sometimes use the quaerere box to search for the "orthographically correct" spelling, and we wouldn't want to disappoint them. So what works for me is (1) to use the unadorned Latin characters for the title and the lemma, and then (2) to add more precise spellings in parentheses as required. This process yields a lemma like this:
Vaa-o-Fonoti (Samoane: Vaʻa-o-Fonotī 'Navis Fonotorum') est. . . .
That seems to do the trick. IacobusAmor 16:23, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Bot Flag[fontem recensere]

Hello!

I'm w:ro:Firilacroco and I want to run a interwiki bot on Latin Wikipedia. I have a quite large level of experiencein running bots. If you have any questions, please post them on my talk page.

I will use, I think, two softwares, PyWikipedia and AutoWikiBrowser.

--FiriBot 18:31, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Nova verba[fontem recensere]

Fieri est "fingere" nova verba Latinae?--87.17.9.240 20:14, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quid dicis? Non te intellego.--Rafaelgarcia 20:31, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Quid tu scripsisti ad Anglicam versum: To become is "to mold/shape" new words of/to Latin (language?)? ?--Rafaelgarcia 20:34, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Ita est.--87.16.5.159 14:49, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. ;-) --Neander 16:29, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
One wonders sometimes...--Rafaelgarcia 16:38, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Obitus[fontem recensere]

In many articles the word 'obitus' is used as an active perfect participle meaning 'having died'. I may be mistaken but I thought that only verba deponentia, like in this case 'nasci' or 'mori' had such active perfect participles, viz. 'natus' and 'mortuus', whereas 'normal' verbs like 'obire' only had passive perfect participles. --Fabullus 16:16, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're mistaken. Yes, I have seen it too ... and am ashamed not to have corrected it every time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Actually the non-deponent obeo in this sense shouldn't have a perfect participle at all, passive or not, because it is intransitive. The verb would have nothing to agree with, unless you were using an impersonal construction. —Mucius Tever 03:09, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Which means in practical terms, either the participle of another verb has to be used (mortuus, defunctus &c.) or an active construction (obiit).--194.95.177.124 07:16, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
[3] (Germanice), footnote there: "obitus est Narbone provincia" - he died in the province of Narbonne - this would justify "obitus", I think. --Alex1011 07:24, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, obitus as adjective is a known form (three citations in Lewis & Short, none "classical", one from an inscription similar to yours) but I think we are trying to write more classical Latin than this: I think it's better to use "mortuus (est)" or "defunctus (est)" or "obiit". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
As far as i know obire in meaning of "to die" can only be used in the pattern "mortem obire" (see e.g. cic. de oratore 29,116; without mortem only poetic see lucretius liber IV)... obire means "to visit" in most cases (see e.g. cic. de amicita 7). ire builds a particip perfect passive and is intransitive though... that is because ceasar often uses the impersonal term itum est Hesiod 17:36, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
"Obitus est" occurs quite a few times in provincial funeral inscriptions. Obviously it's originally the substantive noun "obitus" 'mors' ("dies obitús", "annus obitús") misunderstood and reinterpreted, in a formulaic context, as an adjective, by people whose L1 wasn't the sermo urbanus. "Obitus est" is a vulgar formula that can't be recommended, given our Ciceronian pretensions. --Neander 18:53, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Most likely, and in some cases here it could surely be so interpreted as well. But a search of uses of 'obitus' in Vicipaedia shows many of them are meant to parallel 'natus', meaning someone didn't realize those two verbs have different perfect forms. —Mucius Tever 01:52, 1 Maii 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought! So we had better replace these instances of 'obitus'. Thanks a lot for all your views on the matter! --Fabullus 06:45, 1 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Betawiki update[fontem recensere]

Currently 59.43% of the MediaWiki messages and 17.16% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 09:46, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quid est haec "activitas localizationis"? quomodo Latine "localizamus"? et cur est nobis curandum? IacobusAmor 10:57, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
"Localization" means translating the interface into our local language. By "interface", we mean the text in the tab above this page that says "historia", "recensere", "disputatio", and on the left where it says "pagina prima" and "nuper mutata", "nexus ad paginam", and "fasciculum imponere", the text you see when you open a new account and set your preferrences, and the text that is displayed when you perform any of the other wikipedia functions. At present only about 60% is latin. For example, go to paginae speciales and click on Fasciculi novi and see the text displayed in english rather than latin. And similarly check many of the other functions. Est nobis curandum quia Vicipaedia lepidiora erit omnibus Latine.--Rafaelgarcia 11:46, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:Bangla script display and input help[fontem recensere]

Shouldn't we also cover the problem of fonts which are not displayed correctly?

[[am:Wikipedia:Can't see the font?]]
[[as:Help:Contents]]
[[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:Bangla script display and input help]]
[[bpy:উইকিপিডিয়া:BN/AS/BPY script display help]]
[[bug:Wikipedia:Panginring mita lontara]]
[[chr:Wikipedia:Unicode]]
[[de:Wikipedia:UTF-8-Probleme]]
[[dv:ކޮންޕީޓަރުން ތާނަ ލިޔެކިޔުމަށް މަގެއް]]
[[en:Help:Multilingual support]]
[[fr:Aide:Unicode]]
[[got:Wikipedia:Gothic Unicode Fonts]]
[[hi:विकिपीडिया:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts]]
[[it:Aiuto:Unicode]]
[[ja:Help:特殊文字]]
[[kn:ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:Kannada Support]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:UTF8-Problemer]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സ്വാഗതം (Welcome)]]
[[mr:विकिपीडिआ साहाय्य:Setup For Devanagari]]
[[my:Wikipedia:Font]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Diacritice]]
[[si:Wikipedia:Sinhala Font Guide]]
[[ta:Wikipedia:Font help]]
[[te:వికీపీడియా:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts]]
[[ur:امدادی ہدایات برائےاردو]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Dung Unicode]]
[[zh-min-nan:Help:Án-chóaⁿ tha̍k]]

Who can provide experiences? --Rolandus (disp.) 06:54, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? Those are instructions on specific Wikipedias for help with seeing their own fonts. But our own font is Latin: I guess no one needs help with seeing it.
Do you mean that we should offer translated instructions for seeing those other fonts? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)
For example, not all on page Lingua Sinica is displayed correctly in my browser. We should provide information how to fix this. Like the Germans for the Gothic font, for example. I think there might be some of us which have experiences with other fonts than Latin. --Rolandus (disp.) 09:38, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Categoriae celatae[fontem recensere]

I think it's a good thing that these are not confused with the subject categories. However, people may want to get to them, for the best of reasons (e.g. "I think I'll expand some stubs or improve some Latinitas today"). So what's the best way to make it easy to reach them when required? Maybe some links on the Vicipaedia:Collaboratio page? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Several possibilities:
  1. Individual users can enable the "Categorias celatas monstrare" option in their preferences ("Misc" tab) to have hidden categories always displayed in a separate line below the normal categories.
  2. We could implement the fr.wikipedia system (see e. g. fr:Innocent VII and click on the "[+]" link at the end of the categories box) as a Vicipaedia:Gadget so that those users who wish to can enable it.
  3. We could implement the fr.wikipedia system for all users (as fr.wikipedia does).
I would be glad to implement 2. or 3. in case there is consensus about this. --UV 09:18, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)
System 1 is fine if people remember that it's possible (I had forgotten)! System 3 (a kind of show/hide alternative) seems a good solution to me. Let's see if others comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:16, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Disputatum meum[fontem recensere]

Quod summa pagina scriptum videmus iuxta nomen usoris, dubito an recte versum sit. Disputatio mea aut nuntii mei aut nescio quod aliud melius videretur. ¶ PS. Nonne tempus adest, o magistratus, Tabernae longioris iterum ad tabularium actorum priorum relegandae?--Ceylon 12:49, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I changed the translation at translatewiki: (= betawiki:), this will take effect in a few hours or days. ¶ Good idea, done as well (but anyone can do this, not just magistratus). Greetings, --UV 13:17, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Thalía[fontem recensere]

Hi all, I think it hasn't had any sense to rename Thalía to Thalía (actrix) or Thalía (cantrix), as there are no other "Thalías" written this way. A disambiguation page is also innecesary if there is only two similar articles. You can simply put a disambiguation link in both of them that links to the other one. --Mexicanusscribe! 16:51, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

There are four distinct Greek-mythological Thalias, an opera named Thalia, a musical named Thalia, a painter known as the Thalia Painter (ca. 500 B.C.), at least one painting known as Thalia, a fictional town named Thalia, a town in Texas named Thalia, and numerous other Thalias, which someday will want to be dealt with. See the renovated discretiva page. IacobusAmor 16:58, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, then it's OK now with the pagina discretiva. However, Thalía with accent mark, as I know, presently there is one and only in the world (her daughter is not named Thalía either :-). --Mexicanusscribe! 17:04, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who moved the article, see section "Special characters" on this page. There are only 2 (out of 19 858 articles) where the accent is the sole difference between pages. --Rolandus 17:52, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)
In both the latin and spanish word, the accent is on the same syllable, which is long in latin (cf. the variant Thaleia), the only reason the accent was chosen for the singer's name is that it is given in spanish where it is customary to put accents. IF the name were in latin, then the accent wouldn't ordinarily be written, but it would be pronounced the same.--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, Rafael, I knew it. But my point of view is that names using the Latin alphabet with diacritics, should be written in its original form, as we don't leave in the Middle Ages when it was not possible. Also, you can translate the name to Latin, but, what's the matter with names that are impossible to translate to Latin? If we want to be consequent, we should write all names of Latin script as they are in the original form, even though it would sound the same way in Latin without diacritics. So if this name is in French, we should write it according to the French orthography, if it is Spanish, then according to the Spanish orthography, and so on. This is just my suggestion. --Mexicanusscribe! 18:55, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Nisi fallor, mos Vicipaedianus est Latinizare praenomina (e.g., Ioannes pro Juan); ergo recte Thalia (verum nomen antiquum, bene attestatum) pro Thalía, non? IacobusAmor 20:54, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I know, but what about first names that you cannot latinize? For example a Turkish name like Özgü? --Mexicanusscribe! 08:16, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Just some years ago, when the computers were not able to handle special characters, Özgü would have been written OEZGUE or OZGU, I think. Cardinal Christophorus Schönborn will get

letters where his name is written Schoenborn. And sharp "s" (ß) was written "sz" or "ss". Nowadays it seems to be a matter of "political correctness" keeping foreign names with their foreign spellings. See also the English (!?) en:Côte d'Ivoire for Ivory Coast. Why should someone learn French to be able to speak or write about this country? Btw, are we "allowed" to use Litus Eburneum? Who is the authority to ask? --Rolandus 09:24, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re en:Côte d'Ivoire: This problem arose with my own encyclopedia. The government of Ivory Coast demands that people writing about the country in other languages call it "Côte d'Ivoire," and the U.S. State Department accedes to that. Writers can of course call it "Ivory Coast" if they like, but scholars who hope to get visas to do research there need to call it "Côte d'Ivoire" in any publications that the government might check. IacobusAmor 12:30, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
That's the great thing about writing in Latin. These days, people don't have official names in Latin. So we make our own decisions. We are already sometimes treated as "the authority". Like it or not, that will happen more and more as Vicipaedia improves. And that's one good reason why we have to choose our naming policies carefully.
But, yes, the answer to The Mexican's question is that we only Latinize first names that have a documented Latin form. Otherwise, we don't make any change. So John (etc.) goes to Iohannes but Özgü stays as Özgü. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
There you go again, favoring the eye over the ear. The Roman letter regularly used for writing the sound of ü was "y." I'm unsure about the sound of Ö, but Golden Age Ezgy for Turkish Özgü wouldn't seem all that surprising, nor would a more complete & nativized Latinization, perhaps Ezgia, -ae. Of course a more provocative & perhaps revelatory plan might be to find out how Özgü was pronounced 2000 years ago and Latinize it from there! IacobusAmor 12:30, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that this was a regular trait of mine! But it's a fact that on Vicipaedia we are, at present, writing for the eye. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:23, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)
But that's not how language works: it's learned by ear, and terms are borrowed between languages by ear. To the extent that we treat Latin as an eye-language only, we're treating it as an artificial one—dead as a doornail. IacobusAmor 11:09, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Disputatio:Amphitheatrum Flavium[fontem recensere]

Neminem video in hac disputatione intervenire; forsitan nemo potest illic videre? Sollicito ergo interventus vestros in Taberna quae certe sub oculis plurimorum cadit. Lio 18:00, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Communia[fontem recensere]

The thing is that currently the article name in Formula:Communia if applied requires accusativus (e.g. "Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Vicipedia spectant" instead of "...ad Vicipediam spectant"). I offer to apply nominativus, for example like that: "Vicimedia Communia plura habent de themate Vicipedia". --Brand спойт 19:14, 5 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Careful though you don't take a sentence (grammatical concept) that works fine in English, and apply it do Latin. In English, we can make an adjective out of anything: what kind of shop? a bike shop. what kind of seasoning? taco seasoning. what kind of president of the USA? a monkey president. THis does not work in Latin. So even in your sentence, we would need a different case, probably genitive here.
Further, don't get fooled by the fact that the nominative and ablative of the first declension look the same on paper. If we are dealing with a second declension noun your sentence doesn't even look like it's being governed by a de: "Vicimedia Communia plura habent de themate Aedificium"? Doesn't work I'm afraid.
Have another suggestion? Don't forget, also, that there is another parameter in the {{Communia}}, if you add another |, you can supply the accusative form: {{communia|Wikipedia|Vicipaediam}}
Lastly, please don't forget that there is an a in Vicipaedia.
Regards--Ioscius (disp) 13:00, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

85.2.224.47, STOP![fontem recensere]

Care amice 85.2.224.47, STOP! Think! You've turned dozens of blue links (directly to specific popes) into red links (directly to no article at all). You seem to mean well, but do you know what you're doing? Are you going to create disambiguation pages for all those links you've changed? and why shouldn't these links go directly to the popes, rather than to a disambiguation page? IacobusAmor 11:06, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

For example, in a list of popes, a link to "Petrus" should go directly to Pope Saint Peter, not to a disambiguation page, as Petrus does at the moment. At least that's what we'd expect to happen when we click on the pope's name: we already know that he's a pope! IacobusAmor 11:20, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I’m Massimo, I wish to create a link from the first column (which has nothing to do with popes with the same names which are designated by the Roman numbers, I, II etc.) to a page with reference to the name, you can see for istance Zacharias (nomen). --Massimo Macconi 14:30, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about pontifical names. We already know that Zacharias is a pope because his name is printed in the list of popes, yet you want to waste readers' time by sending them to a disambiguation page, rather than to the page for the pope in question. We already know that Pope Zacharias was a pope, but if we now click on his name, we go to a disambiguation page. IacobusAmor 15:56, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point of view for the popes whose name has not been repetead, but for the others my link is useful, for istance you have links for all the 21 popes with name Ioannes (I, II, II etc.) and in the first column the reader finds also a link to the name Ioannes where in the future we can add information about the name's origin etc.--Massimo Macconi 16:07, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

categoria:ideologia[fontem recensere]

Mihi categoria:ideologia delenda esse videtur propter sensum peiorativum. Ut sint plures fides quas ideologias esse omnes consentiant, tamen quis diiudicet in casu singulo utrum quaedam fides ideologia sit annon? Anglici habent illam categoriam en:Category:Political parties by ideology et alias similes sensu autem neutro ut ita dicam. --Alex1011 21:21, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

necesito asesoria en una traduccion de latín[fontem recensere]

hola me dirijo a uds. en esta oportunidad rogandoles si me pueden ayudar en la traduccion del material que está a continuación lo copie tal cual de la partitura de la obra que tiene por título The Inquiry obra inedita que se va a estrenar la semana que viene y quisieramos conocer que dice en español cual su pronunciación gracias edgardo hernandez royett royett@gmail.com royett67@hotmail.com nota: no conocemos mas detalles de la letra sólo la que trae la partitura y el compositor presumimos es americano hijo de un famoso compositor tambien americano y viene a venezuela a dirijir su obra

The Inquiry Andrea Morricone Gerusalem Difficiles primus te Quis color et quae sit re Magna virus tibi res anti Tum segetes alteca cum demun crassa magnun

Difficiles primus te Quis color et quae sit re Magna virus tibi res anti Tum segetes alteca cum demun crassa magnun

Cristianità Ne re quies quin aut Domis suberet Glan de sues letire redeunt dant arbuta silve et varios ponitfetus

Libra dies somni quae pares ubis fecerit dum sicca tellure lice dum nubila illetiam Exstincto miseratur cesare cum caput obscura nitidum ferrugi

Tam pro pa quan regebibunt omnes sine lege bibit hera bibit merus non me tenet vagatur et anima.

Brixos Ipsi per media acies insignibus aliis agentis animos in pectore versant Ut mare sollicitum in cum bent generiis quo magis exaustesi vero quoniam casus Ut mare sollicitum in cum bent generiis quo magis exaustesi vero quoniam casus


Esodo At si cum referet que diem condet querela lucidus orbis erit frustra terrebe et claro silvas cernes aquilo ne mover denique quid vesper serus ve hat unde Instituit cum iangland at que arbuta mox et frusmentis la et victum dona

Fulminamo liturde traquo maxuma nunc memora collectae ex alto nubes ruit arduae tere terra tremit fugere et mortalia frigida saturnonise se sublime menea pulsam eruerent Cardus tereunt segete subi aspe la peque tribali inter quenitentia quod nisi et absi duis herbam in cectabe dominant avene et sonitus terre.


De templis[fontem recensere]

Valete amici. What name should a page have when it deals with classical temples? I mean, writting some bits on the Pantheon I wanted to make links to pronaos, octastyle, peripteros, and so... and I thought that it could be a good idea to have a page which sums up Vitruvius' theory and lists all the terminology. How to name this page? ordines templorum? architectura templorum Romanourm? architectura classica? Gratias vobis ago! and back to my revision ....--Xaverius 10:29, 11 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Vocabula Vitruviana? IacobusAmor 12:56, 11 Maii 2008 (UTC)

inceptus aut inceptum ?[fontem recensere]

On the pagina prima it says "Alii·Vicimediorum·inceptus" and "...cui "Wikipediae" omnesque inceptus multilingues et liberi sunt:..." implying the 4th decl. noun inceptus -us. However, in Words I find the 2nd decl. "inceptum -i". Is that right?--Rafaelgarcia 00:57, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time the info given by Words is inadequate. "Inceptus" is grammatically quite correct and attested, though "inceptum" and "inceptio" are more frequent in running texts. --Neander 01:09, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Inceptum obviously is just substantialized. The American in me wonders whether coeptum or coepta has a place, too... --Ioscius (disp) 04:49, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

forum internetum[fontem recensere]

Saluete amici!

Quod forum internetum (interretiale) suadetis, ut latinam (linguam) mei (meam) ampliare (meliorare) potero? Studio ut Catulli Carmina


legere legam.

Grato Gratias!

k

Salve, K. Ut videre potes, corrigi nonnulla tua verba. Habesne quaestiones de mutationibus? Et maeste, nescio quomodo bene respondeam tibi... Fortasse inspicias hos nexus apud Vicipaediam Anglicam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#External_links Optima fortuna! --Ioscius (disp) 05:03, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Poemata difficilia sunt quia nobis necesse est bene grammaticam intellegere et vocabularium amplium habere. Mea sententia ad propositum libri utiles sunt:
Hans H. Orberg, Lingua Latina, per se illustrata, Par 1 et Pars 2, Focus Publishing, 2006. vide http://www.lingua-latina.dk/
--Rafaelgarcia 09:02, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Lupercal unearthed[fontem recensere]

I just saw this: "Italian archaeologists say they have found the long-lost underground grotto where ancient Romans believed a female wolf suckled the city's twin founders." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7104330.stm --Rafaelgarcia 14:18, 15 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Categoria: Stadia Olympiae[fontem recensere]

This category claims to be for the 'Stadia at Olympia' (multiple stadia in the famously sacred city in Elis, where the Olympic games used to be held), but the places where the category-tag is deployed show that what the original author meant was 'Olympic stadia'—a different thing altogether, perhaps best rendered Stadia Olympica (also possible, according to ancient use: Stadia Olympia and Stadia Olympiaca). Can we settle on the aptest term? and will some clever bot then fix all these curiosities? IacobusAmor 13:39, 16 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Litterarum vis, sive de Seminariis Hungaricis nuntiandis[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Ecce praeconium minime negligendum, sed nostra cura dignissimum:

Peracto Neapoli superiore aestate conventu HVMANITAS nuncupato, apparitores, felici conventus successu incitati, ordinare statuerunt, una cum amicis collegisque Hungaris, seminaria quaedam Latina, aestate hac proxima Segedini in inclita Hungariae urbe habenda. Quae seminaria inde a die vicesimo quinto mensis Iulii ad Kalendas usque Augustas, sub nomine quod est “LITTERARVM VIS”, celebrabuntur; ita tamen ut iuvenes die vicesimo altero Iulii eodem iam congregentur, ut a peritioribus per biduum usu sermonis Latini extemporali initiari queant. Ad haec seminaria participanda ii omnes vocantur, qui humanitatis studiis addicti de iisdem cum praeceptoribus ac condiscipulis sermocinari disputare deliberare cupiant.
Argumenta tractanda erunt maxime varia, sicut varia est vis quam litterae exercent; participes igitur verba facient de artibus deque Musis omnibus, quae modo excitant modo sedant animi affectus; de vita civili deque arte rhetorica, qua bonus vir cum dicendi peritus tum publici boni defensor fit; de rerum denique gestarum historia deque pueris instituendis, qui virtutum vitiorumque aetatis suae magis sibi conscii fiunt si ea cum moribus institutisque praeteritorum temporum comparant. Quia pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum vetustas: quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi litterarum lumen accederet: nam haec studia adulescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, secundas res ornant, adversis perfugium ac solacium praebent, delectant domi, non impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur, rusticantur.

Videte, quaeso, paginam horum seminariorum [4] et valete quam optime!

Alexis Hellmer 14:43, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Edward Wright (mathematician): Translation of Latin phrases[fontem recensere]

Hi, help would be much appreciated with translating the following Latin book titles mentioned in "Edward Wright (mathematician)" into English:

  • De Magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure; Physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis demonstrata [On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies, and on that Great Magnet the Earth ...] – what does the rest of the book title say?
  • Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis descriptio; ejusque usus, in utraque trigonometria, ut etiam in omni logistica mathematica, amplissimi, facillimi, & expeditissimi explicatio
  • Willebrordi Snellii à Royen Tiphys Batavus, sive histiodromice, de navium cursibus et re navali. (Tabulæ canonicæ parallelorum Canones loxodromici προχειροι.) Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officinâ Elzeviriana.
  • Adriani Metii Alcmar D.M. et matheseos profess. ordin. Primum mobile: astronomicè, sciographicè, geometricè, et hydrographicè, nova methodo explicatum in ... opus absolutum, IV tomis distinctum. Amsterdam: Apud Ioannem Ianssonium.

Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee 00:45, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)

bots[fontem recensere]

For the record: I asked our Vicipaedia:Grapheocrates to grant bot status to Usor:CarsracBot and to Usor:SilvonenBot, as they seem to do good work. --UV 22:26, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)

… and for Usor:MelancholieBot as well. --UV 23:39, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
… and today for Usor:BotSottile, Usor:Ginosbot, Usor:LaaknorBot, and Usor:SpBot. --UV 14:03, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Paginae de aqua[fontem recensere]

Shouldn't the pages for Aqua and Aqua (moleculum) be merged?

If we look at the short page Aqua (moleculum), it seems like we should. However, both pages have interwiki links, which means, that speakers of several langugages decided to have two pages. So, from the point of interoperability it would be much better to keep both pages. Generally I'd support not to merge pages, when they have interwiki links. They might be short, but they will grow. If we have just one page where other languages have two or more pages, it will be difficult to reference from them to us. The bots might be confused, when they try to add interwiki links. Even for humans it might be a challenge, sometimes. --Rolandus 06:51, 23 Maii 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. 204.108.148.11 12:29, 23 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Redirects[fontem recensere]

Those who read the "Nuper mutata" over coffee will notice I made three redirects in Greek script yesterday. I wouldn't normally do such a strange thing, but these were three Greek topics for which there is at present no article in the Greek Wikipedia. My idea was that people searching Google in Greek are more likely to find our articles if they have a Greek title attached. Whether this is really true, I don't know! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)

No problem that I see, Andrew. I've always thought Vicipaedia should be extremely supportive of Hellenic topics. Especially since the Hellenic wiki seems to have been killed off.--Ioscius (disp) 15:00, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I fear these #REDIRECTs will not be indexed by search engines. To solve this, we could use en:Wikipedia:Soft redirects and put them into a special category, to avoid that someone wants to "merge" such a short page with the target page. --Rolandus 18:55, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, interesting idea. And thanks for the link: I didn't know about soft redirects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)
OK then, Rolande, if in such cases we make soft redirects for non-Latin names, containing a formula something like {{Redirnomen}} and a category, do you think a search engine would index them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 10 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure, because for a search engine they look like a normal page. Maybe the Mediawiki software will have special features for soft redirects in the future, then we might need a robot to adopt those pages, however, for now Mediawiki will also treat them as "normal" pages. --Rolandus 20:55, 10 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Ratio automatice creata[fontem recensere]

Who or what creates these many users? The comment says "Ratio automatice creata". --Rolandus 20:27, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I too--Massimo Macconi 20:51, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Indeed they are not being created on the spanish or english pages, it seems peculiar to Vicipaedia.--Rafaelgarcia 21:18, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)
should we stop all these new users?--Massimo Macconi 21:22, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Should we ask Adam? He may know what is going on--Xaverius 21:30, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Unified login is available![fontem recensere]

A piece of good news, and a caveat:

The piece of good news

meta:Help:Unified login is available (as a voluntary opt-in feature) for all users now. Advantages:

  • No one can register "your" username any more on another wikimedia wiki: If you "own" the unified account User:MyUsername, then no one else can register fr:User:MyUsername or wikibooks:ru:User:MyUsername etc. any more.
  • Login to all wikimedia wikis at once (this is really new today!): Logging in to any wikimedia wiki will log you in to all wikimedia wikis at once. If you did not already have an account there, it will be created instantly (automagically) when you first visit that wiki. That's the "ratio automatice creata" thing that flooded recentchanges this afternoon. In the future, such notices will not appear in recentchanges any more, just in Specialis:Log.
  • One common password for all wikimedia wikis (changing the password in one wikimedia wiki changes it on all wikimedia wikis)
  • If you choose to enter and to confirm your e-mail address in Specialis:Preferences (which is not required, but strongly recommended, e. g. in case you ever forget your password), this takes immediate effect on all wikimedia wikis.
The caveat

If, in the past, you used different names on different wikimedia wikis (e. g. if your user name is User:Alfredus on la.wikipedia, User:Alfredo on it.wikipedia and User:StrangeName on en.wikibooks), you may wish to consider asking for all your user names to be renamed to one identical username across all wikimedia wikis. Local bureaucrats can do this (a list of local bureaucrats is available at Specialis:Listusers/bureaucrat at each wiki); if there is no local bureaucrat, you can request the change at meta:Steward requests/Username changes.

Such renaming of usernames cannotcan even be done while you have a global account. Therefore, please make sure beforehand (before you unify your account) that all such rename operations are done. Otherwise, you will have to request a steward to undo again your unified account (at meta:Steward requests/SUL requests) before you can proceed with account renaming. updated. --UV 21:10, 9 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation

I highly recommend using new feature. Please ensure beforehand that you have identical usernames on every wikimedia wiki (sulutil: might help you to check). The helppage for Unified login at meta (meta:Help:Unified login) is alas not written very clearly – if you have any questions, you can post them here, and I will try to answer them – but unified login itself is working well. --UV 23:04, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Yes its pretty amazing. Apparently all you have to do is log in to the same user name that you use here on Vicipaedia with the same password you use here and an account is automatically created at that wiki. However, if you try to create a user account with your Vicipaedia username it will give you an error that that name has already been reserved.--Rafaelgarcia 01:10, 28 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Political userboxes[fontem recensere]

I notice some new userboxes which seem to be written in a Hispanic dialect. I guess userboxes can be in any language? Do we have a policy about that "namespace"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the boxes created by Usor:Esteban97. It appears to me that the cause is that he does not know the rudiments of latin. What he writes is a crazy mash of spanish, italian, french, and english. User boxes by default should be written in latin, unless the box itself has to do with a particular language. As it is the extra boxes he has added are unintelligible.--Rafaelgarcia 13:43, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)
I added the contents of these userboxes directly to Usor:Esteban97's userpage and deleted the templates, as they are probably of no use to any other user due to their strange language. --UV 19:40, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)

SpBot[fontem recensere]

Woohoo! SpBot has been deleting " " between numbers because a space between numbers apparently now is automatically a half-space. Likewise, SpBot is changing "–" to the en-dash itself. IacobusAmor 15:20, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Wow that sure makes life easier!--Rafaelgarcia 15:22, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry: Just as SpBot has been changing "–" to the en-dash-character, it has just been changing " " to the thinspace character. --UV 19:30, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Rename user[fontem recensere]

Could you please move my userpage Usor:TheMexican to Usor:El Mexicano? I use the new global login system and I want my page to be under the same name in every Wiki. Thanks. --El Mexicano 19:42, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I think I could solve it. --El Mexicano 19:49, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Your userpage was moved, but your old account Usor:TheMexican was not renamed to your new account Usor:El Mexicano. If you would like to have your old account Usor:TheMexican renamed to Usor:El Mexicano, you have to take the following steps:
  1. Have your global account deleted again (request this at meta:Steward requests/SUL requests and beware of bugzilla:14330).
  2. Ask our bureaucrat first to rename Usor:El Mexicano to Usor:El Mexicano-SUL and then to rename Usor:TheMexican to Usor:El Mexicano (request this at en:User talk:Adam Bishop).
  3. Recreate your global account at Specialis:MergeAccount (at any wiki where you have a local account). --UV 20:03, 29 Maii 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I "cannot rename user El Mexicano locally as this username has been migrated to the unified login system." I think this is beyond my powers now. Adam Episcopus 08:49, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Correct – local account renames (on individual projects) are not possible while an account is unified. --UV 19:45, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
In other words, El Mexicano already has a Vicipaedia account called El Mexicano. Thus instead of renaming, you can just create a redirect from TheMexican to El Mexicano.--Rafaelgarcia 20:13, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Right – but that way, all the >400 old edits of our friend remain attributed to the old account name: Specialis:Contributions/TheMexican. If our friend would wish to have his old edits available under his unified name El Mexicano, then he would have to follow the procedure I described above. --UV 21:01, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Articles about personal names[fontem recensere]

Disputatio e Disputatio:Siricius (nomen) mota[fontem recensere]

This page has nothing to do with a discretive page, but it's about the name Siricius in the future I/we can add some information about the name in itself (e.g Eusebius). Other wikis have the two kinds of pages too--Massimo Macconi 17:52, 8 Maii 2008 (UTC)

But we don't know that any such information exists. We have no evidence even for our statement that Siricius is a praenomen. I'm for deleting this one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:06, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
But what about the pope Siricius? --Alex1011 08:12, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
He has an article. I don't understand the question. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Well, you said, that we have no evidence, that Siricius is a praenomen. Or do you mean, that "papa Siricius" could also mean the pope from Sirica (?), in this case it wouldn't be a praenomen. --Alex1011 11:52, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well (as you know!) Romans had several names. The names by which we happen to know the emperors and early popes are usually not their praenomina, although there are exceptions like Tiberius (imperator) and Lucius (papa). These few were praenomina, yes, but nearly all the rest were not: they were nomina, cognomina or agnomina.
In later times some of these Roman names well known from the emperor and pope lists have been turned into praenomina. Then we might need a discretiva page.
So far as I can see from other wikis etc., that hasn't happened with Siricius: only one notable person has had this name, and nobody appears to know anything about its origins. That's why I can see no justification as yet for a page Siricius (nomen): there is nothing to say on it, except "Siricius was a chap's name", a fact that is covered in the first sentence of Siricius! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Now read on ...[fontem recensere]

There is a discussion at Siricius (nomen), an article created anonymously and (a while back) marked as delenda.

I agree with the user (I think it was Fabullus) who said delenda. In this case, only one known person has had the name, there seems to be no information about it or what it means or what kind of name it is. So (I would argue) there is simply nothing to say on a page "Siricius (nomen)".

I mention it here because, more generally, it might be worth discussing to what extent we need articles about names as well as discretiva pages listing people with the same name. Often there is nothing to say about a personal name except "the following people have had this name" (which demands a discretiva page) and maybe "the origin of the name is as follows" (if this is known).

If we have a substantial article on any topic, there will often be a paragraph about the origin of the name(s). That's part of the topic. But Vicipaedia isn't an etymological dictionary, so if all we have to say about a word is its origin, we wouldn't normally have a page on it at all (I think).

So, rather than an almost-empty page X (nomen) and a discretiva page X (discretiva) should we prefer to combine the two, in a special kind of discretiva page for personal names where we also add the origin of the name if known? I think there are probably some such pages already: I'm suggesting that it may be the best system to follow regularly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea to me. I think the only other thing you left out that might be included on the page are different variations of the names. And this combination idea is what en.wiki does. --Secundus Zephyrus 18:47, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, the variations are important. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:51, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was me who, some time ago, marked a number of these articles as 'delenda'. I should have indicated my motives more clearly, but I couldn't have put it more eloquently than Andrew, with whom I agree entirely on this matter. --Fabullus 06:03, 7 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the arguments and in the special case Siricius (nomen), where it seems that there is nothing to be said about the topic, we should not have a page, of course. This means that Siricius (nomen) should be deleted (maybe we should rescue the discussion to a page in the Vicipaedia: namespace before we do this). Secondly we should - as a matter of principle - put the information on that page, where the user would expect the information. So sometimes two pages X (nomen) and a discretiva page X (discretiva) seem to be an overkill. However, there are several aspects to be taken in account:
  1. What information do we want to offer? Then we are talking about relevancy etc. This is not the topic in this case.
  2. How can we do that ergonomically and aesthetically? Almost-empty pages do not look aesthetically and if the information is spread over several pages (maybe even redundant) this is not ergonomically. So sometimes it seems that we should delete a page for ergonomical and/or aesthetical reasons. Here we have to consider two subcases: a) We do not have the information now, but we might have it in 5 years. b) There will never be relevant information which could be put on the page in question. - People have different opinions how to handle this. This might be a special topic ;-)
  3. How can we manage it technically by Mediawiki means and how does our solution cooperate with other Wikipedias? For this aspect, I'd say: a) It is generally "better" to split pages (e. g. because they can be better interlinked), even if they are short and "almost-empty". b) If a page has an interwiki link, the page should stay. c) If two pages from a foreign Wikipedia link to the same page in the Vicipaedia, the page in the Vicipaedia should be split. d) We should use en:Wikipedia:Soft redirects.
en:Wikipedia:Soft redirects might solve some of the cases where we have competing aesthetical and technical requirements. We should have different types of pages, e . g.:
  1. "normal" pages: pages where we have enough content
  2. discretiva pages: they should keep no information but the references to the target page; all information they keep (for convenience, like a short definition) should be mirrored on the target page; no information shall be lost if we deleted all discretiva pages; the Mediawiki software knows about this special type of page, even if it looks just "normal"
  3. hard redirects with #REDIRECT; these hard redirects should be categorized (like the English Wikipedia does)
  4. soft redirects: these look like "normal" pages but have a template which redirects the user to another page by telling him to go to that page (the user is not redirected automatically, like hard redirects do, but has to click on the provided link).
We should provide such pages with soft redirects for e. g.:
  • topics which should be better looked up in the Wiktionary
  • common misspellings where we want the user to recognize his mistake (and not be comfortably redirected by a hard redirect)
  • information which is handled as part of a bigger page: we could provide a link to the relevant section (this could also be done by using hard redirects, but the user will not know the reasons why the information is not worth to have a page of its own)
  • pages of the type xx (nomen) when the information is provided as part of a page about a person
We should keep in mind, that we might want to produce a printed version sometimes and then we will be happy if these (technically) different types of pages are marked in a way that software can understand. What will we want to do with the many unclassified hard redirects then? Soft redirects would be better in this situation. Or at least classified hard redirects ;-)
It is obvious that we want to provide an encyclopaedia. However, we could also help the user when he is searching for an information we do not provide or not under the topic he was searching for. So, back to the beginning: We do not have content for a page Siricius (nomen), so we do not want to have such a page. However, we could provide a soft redirect instead of providing a red link. In fact a soft redirect is just a template which explains where the user might find the information. Technically it is a "normal" page, but software - and humans ;-) - will be able to notice the difference. Maybe even the Mediawiki software will be able to treat such special pages "specially " in the future. --Rolandus 06:47, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
As a linguist (and occasionally professional translator) I am a Whorfian: I believe translation to be difficult. And this means that I don't think there can ever be perfect interwiki linking, and trying to facilitate future total interwiki linking in the perfect wikiworld might be time wasted on a pipe-dream! But I agree with all the rest, I think.
I agree. And just because it is difficult or sometimes impossible to translate all foreign concepts, we cannot provide "normal" Latin pages for all foreign terms. Then, in some cases, it might be useful to have a page which says "Latin does not have this concept" instead of providing a red link. Or a page which says: "Latin does not have this concept, it has the following concepts instead ...". We will not want to provide such information for all missing concepts,however, in the cases where we want to explain the situation, soft links would be a technical solution for that. --Rolandus 08:23, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, a soft redirect from X (nomen) to X (discretiva) would work fine as far as I'm concerned. (1.) For that soft-redirect page we would want a template to say "For information about this name, such as a list of people who have held it, click on: X." and to add the page to a hidden category such as Categoria:Nominum redirectiones. (2.) And for the name-discretiva page, another template to say "This is a discretiva page about a personal name," adding the page to a hidden Categoria:Paginae de nominibus discretivae. The name-discretiva page could also be manually added to Categoria:Praenomina, Categoria:Cognomina or whatever, as appropriate. Is that how you would see it, Rolande?
Great! --Rolandus 08:23, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
[Added a moment later:] There is one objection, though. Soft redirects are a handy device technically for the reasons you give, but they waste readers' time. How serious is that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:40, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
You are right. We should use them, where they are appropriate and useful. We should be aware of this technical opportunity. Sometimes - maybe in most cases? - a red link will be the better solution. However, in some cases, such a meta-page would be fine. Yes, it's paradox that we should have a page about topic, which just tells the reasons why we do not have a page about topic. It can be also seen as a special form of humor we could bring in ;-) --Rolandus 08:23, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
As for soft redirects that waste readers' time, we should use categorized (hard) redirects instead. --UV 08:50, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I have now deleted the page Siricius (nomen) and pasted the relevant discussion at the beginning of this section. Another discussion started out there as well: I have pasted it below. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Vide nunc {{Disnomen}} et {{Redirnomen}}; vide etiam paginas Anteros (nomen) et Anteros (discretiva). Placentne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to find a better symbol for the redirecting page, see Anteros (nomen). --Rolandus 17:41, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I knew something better would turn up. Thanks, Rolande! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:53, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
This is fun: Usor:Gualterius II put me on to it. If you start following up the pages in various other languages that have some connection with the name Caesar, you may continue for some time. Where exactly to make the interwiki links, that's the question. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:41, 13 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Ordo nominum[fontem recensere]

Disputatio e Disputatio:Siricius (nomen) mota.

This might be a suitable place to raise a question worth discussing at length, perhaps in Taberna or elsewhere: what's the best order for putting variant names in lemmas? Vicipaedia is wildly inconsistent in this regard. It's a problem not just for famous old Romans, who had several names but were usually known by just one. Take, for example, the actress born Angelina Jolie Voight, who uses the stage name Angeline Jolie, but whom the media call Angelina. For names of that kind, what's the best order? I don't know if nomen scaenicum is right for 'stage name', but you get the point:

Angelina, nomine scaenico Angelina Jolie, nata Angelina Jolie Voight (1975), est. . . .
Angelina Jolie, plerumque dicta Angelina (nata Angelina Jolie Voight, 1975), est. . . .
Angelina Jolie Voight, nomine scaenico Angelina Jolie, plerumque dicta Angelina (nata 1975), est. . . .

I favor the last set, but remain open to alternatives. For people who change their name at marriage, maybe some variant of the second set would be best, and perhaps that style should then be adopted for all names, but a defect in it is that it doesn't succinctly specify what kind of name (e.g., 'stage name') Angelina Jolie might be; in contrast, the third set specifies the function or relevant cultural implications of each variant (the first form being assumed to be the birthname). ¶ The case of the old Romans may differ a bit, in that they seem to have assumed that most men would have at least three names (praenomen, nomen, cognomen), two of which, at least through the republican period and into the first or second century of the imperial period, told a little something about their bearer's family's place in society. In lists, the alphabetized element is the nomen; so in an alphabetical list of emperors, we expect to find Julius Caesar (if we may include him) right under Valens and right above Caligula and then Augustus:

Flavius Iulius Valens, 364378
Gaius Iulius Caesar, dictator
Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus Caligula, 3741
Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, 27 a.C.n.14 p.C.n.

(Augustus's change of names on being adopted complicates this matter, and the form given for him above might be inconsistent with the others.) So those could be the forms of the names that ought to begin their respective lemmas (with obvious redirects from "Julius Caesar" and "Caligula" and "Augustus"). It's already something like what we do for Caligula, though at the moment that page is reachable only by a search for "Caligula," not for "Gaius Iulius Caesar Germanicus." It's not at all what we do for Constantinus I: Constantinus I, Magnus, vel Flavius Valerius Constantinus. That style's vel isn't saying much, and may mislead naive readers. IacobusAmor 13:37, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I favour:
  1. in the heading, the person's usual current name or our Latin version of it (e.g. Caligula, Angelina Jolie, Gordonus Brown).
  2. in the first sentence
    1. a repeat of that same form, in bold
    2. any almost-equally-common alternative forms, also in bold
    3. then, in parentheses, a full name in the original language, in italics
    4. if there are any more versions that need listing, they would usually need some explaining as well. So I would put them in a footnote, or in a later sentence about why the subject has several names.
Personally I'm against excessive Latinization of proper names, and I think the longer a person's name, the sillier it looks to turn every bit of it into Latin. For an example, see Petrus I (imperator Brasiliae)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I recently rewrote the first part of Alexander Magnus, and I did something different there. In spite of the heading, I gave his name in the first sentence simply as Alexander. I felt that the other bits (the III and the Magnus) wanted explaining: they were not part of his name as he knew it. So I used bold to pick them out, as I gradually explained them, in the first paragraph. Keep the first sentence simple, I thought. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Without looking at the lemma, I agree with what you did with III & Magnus, but I have to run. More in a few days, or whenever. IacobusAmor 14:16, 6 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Boris Johnson[fontem recensere]

I draw attention to the latest item in the news (thanks, Alex!) An admirably practical solution to a growing social problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

The usefulness of duplication[fontem recensere]

The problem with moving birthyears & deathyears to the data hominis box is that people who want to quote the text won't have the birthyears & deathyears. What they'd formerly have quoted as

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus (37–68) fuit Imperator Romanus ab anno 54 usque ad annum 68.

they'll now have to quote as

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus fuit Imperator Romanus ab anno 54 usque ad annum 68.

Other well-known wikis (e.g., English, French, Polish, Russian, Spanish), even though they have data hominis boxes, put the birth & death data in the opening sentence. (German & Japanese do too, but they don't have a data hominis box.) Why wouldn't the tiny amount of duplication involved be worth the value it adds to the quotability of the text? IacobusAmor 16:32, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you -- not only for the sake of people who quote, but also for those people who get their information from text rather than infoboxes! I like it better if all important information remains in the text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Sophistes, zelotes, nautes[fontem recensere]

I was trying quite hard to find out the female and neutral forms of words like 'sophistēs' or 'zelōtēs' and so on. Most of those words got equivalents einding in '-a' what can be eny gender but, you know, I already know that. Does the female word have to end in '-e'? I hope you can find an answer. --Thōmās 20:41, 10 Iunii 2008 (CET)

In Greek one occasionaly finds forms in -tria, like sophistria, nautria and poetria (for a female poeta), the last of which is also found in Latin. --Fabullus 20:09, 10 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that form sophistria was coined by Plato himself! Probably it will have already been used in Latin, in one of the Latin translations of Plato. Even if by chance it has not been used in Latin before, we would be within our rights in adopting it -- after all, sophistes, too, is a Greek word adopted into Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 11 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Compare also poetria and psaltria which are found in ancient Latin (for a female poeta and psaltes respectively). --Fabullus 07:14, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

So you think I could say 'schizoidria' too? Thōmās 18:52, 11 Iunii 2008 (CET)

No, definitely not, words like sophistes, zelotes, nautes and poetes are first declension masculine nouns describing someone who performs some action (see here). Schizoides on the other hand appears to be a third declension adjective, which is the same in masculine and feminine (see here). --Fabullus 17:03, 11 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Thōmās 19:08, 11 Iunii 2008 (CET)

I just found the name 'Asteria/-ae' which also comes as 'Asterie/-es'. 'Nautries' would sound nice too. I still don't know what neutral forms would be like. --Thōmās 21:33, 25 Iunii 2008 (CET)

Disputatio:Anicius Manlius Severinus Boetius[fontem recensere]

Hanc disputationem a die 30 Maii proposui in Pagina Disputationis, sed videtur neminem eam consideravisse. Forsitan melius est in Taberna scribere ut sub oculis plurium membrorum communitatis cadat et disputatio prosequi possit? Lio 18:00, 12 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Ut vides in historia paginae], mi Lio, hoc scripsit Usor:Marcus91 qui fere nihil aliud addidit et longum spatium temporis abest. Fortasse nemo intellegit id quod scripsit, et de ea re nemo respondet.
Notandum est etiam ista pagina cum Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius contribuenda. Si vis id facere, optime! Suadeo igitur: adde in hac pagina id quod utile est et quod intellegis; dele id quod non intellegis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:59, 12 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Request bot flag for WikiDreamer Bot[fontem recensere]

  • Operator: WikiDreamer
  • Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
  • Programming Language(s): Python (Pywikipedia framework)
  • Function Summary: Interwiki from bs wikipedia
  • Bot with flag: 35 & ++ wikipedia

I run my bot now for 50 test edits. Thanks! --WikiDreamer Talk 23:49, 13 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Conventiculum Buffaloniense[fontem recensere]

There's going to be a spoken Latin workshop in Buffalo the end of this month. The page states that "The organizers are be interested in any suggestions from potential participants", so why not a discussion on Vikipaedia as well? I'd love to go, but alas I live in Korea. Mithridates 05:12, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

propositum hoc omnino probo, sed moderatoribus difficile sit instruere colloquium interretiale dum in conuenticulum ipsum strenue molimur. at tamen omnibus participibus hortabimur ut paginas Vicipaediae inspiciant, et forsan oriatur hac ratione loquella a conuenticulo. Si quis porro in hac re consilium dare uoluerit, moderatores per paginam conuenticuli adeat, et gratissime hoc consilium accipient, usurpabunt. Niallus 03:21, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Niallus Buffaloniensis

Expression[fontem recensere]

Potestisne me adiuvare in traducendo has expressiones anglicas?

  • From then on
  • In advance
  • In advance of
  • At all
  • At once

Thx in advance!! --Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 21:46, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide sample sentences using the above expressions in the senses for which you want translations...I hate guessing what people want.--Rafaelgarcia 22:26, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Caveat: I did guess, so I may have guessed wrongly.
  • from then on=ex eo tempore
  • in advance=prius
  • in advance of=prius quam
  • at all=omnino
  • at once=una (=at the same time), subito (=suddenly) --Iovis Fulmen 20:47, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Thx a lot. I can't give a context because as far as I know they're fixed expressions and so I want to know the translation beforehand.--Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 01:10, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
PS: Scitisne ubi harum expressionum catalogum invenire possim?
Vide etiam b:Lingua Latina in libris de Harrio Potter/Verba quae ad tempus spectant. --Alex1011 07:30, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

captivi in philippinis qui saltant[fontem recensere]

Volo scribere commentationem de captivis illis in Philippinensi carcere qui una saltant sed nomen probum me eludit. Habetne quis rationem inspiratam? --Ioscius (disp) 21:43, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Fugitivi? Homines (ef)fugentes? Qui (ef)fugiunt? IacobusAmor 03:28, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Estne Jeffrey Schilling? Interrete perfacile est inventu.--Jondel 05:50, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Jondel, what on earth are you talking about? What does that have to do with dancing Philippines prisoners? I'm talking about this: en:Thriller_(Cebu,_Philippines_Inmates'_Video), and the sort... --Ioscius (disp) 09:43, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Ioscius , I thought you were talking about a person who escaped from captivity. sorry again. :< --Jondel 10:47, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Categoria nominum[fontem recensere]

De utilitate categoriarum nominum propriorum in linguis non-Latinis novarum dubito. Fortasse Gualterius II vult nobis exponere id quod vult facere? [Addidi: Exemplorum gratia vide paginas Gualterius et Hermannus.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Sed vide nunc id quod feci apud Gratia (nomen) et Grace et Grazia. Si ita facimus, in paginis Categoria:Praenomina Italica (etc.) habebimus indicem verum praenominum Italicorum (etc.); et possumus omnes paginas nominum ad paginas in aliis Vicipaediis connectare. An id utile est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 16 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Magistratus nostri ut videtur[fontem recensere]

Magistratus nostri ut videtur pro maleficio in commentariis Aeneas et Gravitas (physica) usorem ignotum 70.174.129.49 nondum in iudices animadverterunt. IacobusAmor 12:29, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Iudices procul absint, nam reus usor ignotus non habendus: vitia grammatica crimen non sunt!Iovis Fulmen 20:24, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Ille novus vacerrosus[fontem recensere]

Di immortales, quid scelus contra vos fecimus ut hanc de abecedario Graeco rem meriti simus? Irrationalem illem vacerossum censor. Quid igitur est nobis agendum? Revertimusne patienter eius scelera contra nos?--Rafaelgarcia 13:48, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Vide paginam disputationis meam: ibi rationem (divinam) habes. Credo re vera nec has res, nec emendationes de Aenea et Gravitate, scelera esse! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 18 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Bernardus Romeo[fontem recensere]

Hanc paginam inter paginas corrigenda inveni et puto eam non esse dignam nostrae Vicipaediae: nam toto orbe terrarum sunt mille et ultra turbae pedilusorum et unaquaeqe habet et habuit in temporibus praeteritis plus quam 200 pedilusores. Volumus 200000 paginas instruere cum his onnibus? Tantum 100 vel 200 maximorum pedilusorum sunt digni in Vicipaedia extare, sicut Pelé, Maradona, Platini, Meazza, Piola, Mattews et similes. Bernardus Romeo hic est unus ex multitudine et eius pagina delenda,mea sententia, simul cum similibus. Et eadem consideratio facienda est in multibus alliis argumentis praeter ludos deportivos, sicut actoribus et moderatoribus cinematographicis, saltatoribus, musicis, scriptoribus etc. Si pagina non habet minimum linearum, ad exemplum 10 lineas, non est digna Vicipaediae, quia vita et acta sunt tam minimi momenti ut non inveniantur quae scribenda essent. Lio 23:02, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Quid de nexibus intervicis de:Bernardo Romeo, en:Bernardo Romeo, es:Bernardo Romeo, eu:Bernardo Romeo, it:Bernardo Romeo, ja:ベルナルド・ロメオ, nl:Bernardo Romeo, pl:Bernardo Romeo, et pt:Bernardo Daniel Romeo? Erraverunt quoque illi vici? IacobusAmor 23:47, 19 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Sunt ergo auspicandae 200000 paginae de pedilusoribus? Non certe in Vicipaedia in qua latinitas significat universale instrumentum studii et scientiae pro hominibus omnium nationum. Non est dubium quod in nationibus sicut Argentina, Hispania, Germania hic pedilusor, qui fuit in illis magni momenti, locum teneat in eorum nexibus, sed, mihi videtur, totos homines non interesse et igitur non dignum esse partecipandi in contracto numero de quo locutus sum.Audiamus alias sententias nostrorum Vicipedianorum.Lio 16:32, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Vide etiam paginam de Gravitate. --Rolandus 17:04, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Legi paginam de Gravitate, quacum omnino mea opinio consonat. Illic perfectum exemplum est cum pagina "Christophorus Benfey", quae posset manere si saltem Latinae Litteraturae iste dominus professor esset. Aliter toto mundo quot sunt professores linguae suae, et aliarum +linguarum, et scientiae, et mathematicae, et depicturae et ceterarum disciplinarum? Quot paginae sunt scribendae? Et quid vestra interest si Marius Rossi est mathematicae professor in Lyceo scientifico Pisis - Italia? Interesse possit si novissimum theorema enunciavisset, vel novam doctrinam toto orbi utilem et notam.Mea sententia pagina Christophorus Benfey delenda est et omnes paginae illi similes de quoque argumento agentes.Lio 22:42, 20 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Quod ad me attinet, cum Maone congruo: mille floreant florum! IacobusAmor 00:16, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Ecce, non habemus paginam Maonis et habemus Christophorus Benfey! Lio 10:36, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Probe dicis, amice. Eheu!!! Nondum est nobis Mao Zedong!!! IacobusAmor 12:02, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
... and I fear we cannot fix this by deleting Bernardus Romeo :-( --Rolandus 13:10, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Rolandus me suadet paulo supra ad paginam de Gravitate legendam et nunc defendit mansionem Bernardi Romeo in Vicipaedia! Circa Mao Zedong curabo proximis diebus paginam scribere, quae erit mea prima pagina...! Lio 21:36, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I pointed you to older discussions about the topic: That's the one thing, because I think someone should know what has been discussed before. On the other hand I really think we should more care about the pages we do not have than the pages we have but seem less relevant. They cannot make harm, I think. However, if you really feel that it is important to remove that page, you should discuss this with the the authors, at least. It must be frustrating to create a page which will be deleted later. Concerning this page, I agree that it is not an important page. However - and again - will it be a problem to keep such a page? Or shouldn't it be a point to not frustrate authors ... if possible ;-) It is not a great page but someone liked to create it. And it is not a page which could make a problem, I think. We should see what priorities we have. I do not really care about this specific page but there should be principles behind each case. So, if you really think we should delete this page - considering some side effects - I would not vote against it. This single page is not important. If it helps the project, we should delete this page. --Rolandus 18:35, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Quomodo deletionem paginae inceptu adiuvat, nescio. Omnes wikipediae paginas revera marginales habent: est natura wikipediarum. Sed si unus solus usor venit per nexus intervici et per hanc paginam ad Vicipaediam, ad paginam de pediludio, ad paginam primam, valde bene!
Oportet, ut credo, paginas minores oblivisci, tempusque consumere in paginis utilioribus (sicut Mao Zedong!) creandis et meliorandis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:59, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Probe dicis, amice! IacobusAmor 19:20, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Andrew & Iacobus: I said "if it helps" ... but I do not see how it could help, too. --
Conatus sum paginam creare, sed habilis non sum in transferendo imagines et alia data a it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong. Quis me adiuvare potest, explicando vel directe agendo?Lio 23:52, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

"Constituency" &c.[fontem recensere]

"Constituency, (electoral ~ congressional) district, (parliamentary) seat ~ division, circonscription électorale, circonscription législative, circunscripción, Wahlkreis": constituentia? pagus? (comitialis) dioecesis? IacobusAmor 17:13, 21 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered about this before. Anyone with Neolatin dictionaries have any clues? Harrissimo 00:51, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC).
I'll try mine (Iosephus Esmond Riddle et Thomas Kerchever Arnold, A Copious and Critical English-Latin Lexicon (1849-1872) Textus).
For "Constituents", i.e. "voters", they offer "mandatores" and "ii quorum ego vicarius sum (in senatu)". That doesn't help with "constituency".
For "Ward" (which in England is, I guess, the same concept as "constituency" but on the municipal scale) they offer "circuitus". That does correspond roughly with the term used in many other languages: any use? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Micronesia (redirect)[fontem recensere]

Will someone (who knows how) delete the redirect that sends readers from "Micronesia" to "Foederatae Micronesiae Civitates" (vel "Foederatae Micronesiae Civitates")? The reason is that the fuller name is the right one, the shorter name is used mainly as slang or by the ignorant, and we need to have an article that will be equivalent to en:Micronesia. IacobusAmor 12:14, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are about to begin Micronesia? If so, all you have to do is this. Click on Micronesia here. When it takes you to "Foederatae Micronesiae Civitates", click on the little word "Micronesia" that appears below the title. Now click on "Edit/Recensere", remove the redirect line that you see there, and start writing the article the way it ought to be. Ipso facto you have ended the redirect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Factumst. Gratias, amice! IacobusAmor 20:03, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)


De Vicipaedia[fontem recensere]

saluete pariter, amici!

gaudeo quidem Vicipaediam Latinam uiuere uosque tantopere usum Latini sermonis sedule scribendo propagare! cum alio loco legi praesidium Vikipaediae uniuersae sectionem Latinam claudendam statuisse, a uobis quaere uelim, qui nunc status huius paginae est. num mox clauditur? peraegre enim feram inter tot uiles humilesue uoces, quarum nonnullae insuper fictiles sunt, Latinam linguam pergrauem profundamque exemptam esse. si esperantum praesides admittunt tum etiam Latinum. nam praecipuum argumentum non de copia litterarum tantum fuit, sed ut Latinum per definitionem lingua mortua sermoque quasi obsoletus fuerit itaque nullo modo admittendum. fortasse aliquis uestrum plus de hac re referat. ualete!

Salve, anonyme. Thank God, Caesar, the rumour was false! Nemo sic statuit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

The date of Odysseus' return (in German)[fontem recensere]

http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/wissenschaft/393366/index.do?from=rss

The last sentence is „Mögen uns Historiker vorwerfen, dass unsere Denkweise lachhaft ist – wir wären schon froh, wenn wir ein paar Menschen zu einer detaillierteren Lektüre der Odyssee brächten.“ --Rolandus 07:01, 24 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what was the herb that Circe used to turn men into pigs? And when, if ever, will we find an antidote? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 24 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Non-Greek letters[fontem recensere]

I apologise for semi-protecting the pages on this topic that has recently aroused so much interest on so many Wikipedias (see also my disputatio page). Our visitor is not as innocent as she pretends: she is naughtily claiming on eo:wiki that "Even Latin wiki ... (including admins) acknowledges" her edits. The pages can still be edited, of course. If others haven't got in ahead of me, I'll tidy up a bit this afternoon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:40, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to semi-protect the relevant pages for the time being.
It is an interesting detail that some of the edits on eo.wikipedia were made using the username eo:User:CBMIBM while our anonymous contributor explicitly stated: "I never had account in any Wikipedia" and denied being identical to en:User:CBMIBM. Whether this is credible is up to individual judgment, given the fact that en:User:CBMIBM at first fiercely denied and then admitted being identical to en:User:Wikinger. --UV 09:24, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
The heat has died down and the pages are unprotected again. Thanks to Fabullus and others for improvements meanwhile! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

21,000[fontem recensere]

Credo paginam numero 21,000 fuisse Iacobus Ephraim Lovelock ab usore quodam anonymo inceptam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 25 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Vicipediae dies[fontem recensere]

Lego: "Hodie dies Mercurii 25 Iunii 2008." Totum iustum? :-)

Anonymus noster de porta communi loquitur et fortasse "browser" suum purgare debet. Sed, de verbis ipsis, quid melius? "Septembris heri kalendae", dixit Afranius comoedus; igitur, si anno 2008 vivit, "Mercurii hodie dies" dicit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
"Hodie" est adverbium non declinabile, verbum "est" subintenditur, ergo: tota iusta.Lio 17:57, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Brassica sp.[fontem recensere]

Please, help me to solve this problem: are there latin common names for these plants? Because I have this feeling that I'm doing something wrong in the Brassica article. According to Words, brassica means cabbage; but is the Brassica article related to this exactly meaning? Or it's related to the taxonomical genus?

  • collard greens
  • chinese broccoli
  • cauliflower
  • broccoflower
  • cabbage
  • brussels sprouts
  • kohlrabi
  • broccoli

Gratias vobis prius ago.--Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 04:56, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page seems to be about the species, "Brassica oleracea" or "cabbage". Our problem is the difference in usage between classical Latin (in which "brassica" is indeed a good word for "cabbage") and scientific Latin, in which "Brassica" is the name of the genus.
A solution that we have sometimes adopted is:
  1. If we agree that "brassica" is the best and simplest name for "cabbage", don't move the existing page.
  2. If you want to start a page about the genus, call it Brassica (genus).
  3. If you want to write about the various species, varieties and hybrids (I have never heard of a broccoflower, but I'm sure someone must have created one!) you have two choices.
    1. If you are confident of the classical Latin names, call them by those names and start pages under those names; but
    2. if not (and often it isn't possible to be confident; some of those types were quite unknown to the Romans) it might be better to call them by their scientific names, and start pages under those names.
Does that help? If it's any use, Cyma was the Latin word for "purple sprouting broccoli"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm leaving the brassica article like it's now, and creating a new one referring to the genus. Thx 4 all!!--Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 02:10, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, We Can"[fontem recensere]

According to reports on the internet, Obama's campaign has decided to Latinize his slogan as "Vero Possemus." Is that the imperfect subjunctive? Why would it be better than the present indicative? IacobusAmor 19:37, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, We Can" is "Vero possumus". Subjunctive suggests some hedging ("vero possimus" 'Yes, we might'; "vero possemus (si vellemus)" 'yes, we could (if we would)'. But of course I shrink from interfering with American politics.   :–)   --Neander 20:43, 28 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Sprinkling non-Latin glosses here & there[fontem recensere]

Dear bashful user 189.82.90.9, Vicipaedia isn't a bilingual encyclopedia. In various articles, you've been inserting English translations of miscellaneous Latin terms. For example, in the table in the article Metal (musica), you changed "Grave Metallum" to "Grave Metallum (Heavy Metal)." The usual place for adding such information is just after the lemma at the start of an article. Was there a reason you added these glosses in the middles of articles? ¶ By the way the plural of grex is greges, not grexi. IacobusAmor 03:53, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I can see reasons in this special case. We do not have a page Grave Metallum, so at the moment we cannot put the translation (or an interwiki link, which is aequivalent for me) after the lemma. When I provided translations in cases where the Latin page did not exist, I used footnotes (<ref>...</ref>). These footnotes should be removed when the Latin page has been created, for at least two reasons: 1) We should avoid redundancy. 2) Vicipaedia isn't a bilingual encyclopedia, as Iacobus said.
There are several list/tables which keep translations, especially list of cities and countries. I think the translations should be deleted (= cleaned up), when the red link has turned into a blue link. We should have a recommendation here. As I realized, some people like the lists/tables with translations, especially where there seems to be a political/national background. ;-) However, this could be an additional reason to remove the translations of a term where we already have the translation (or interwiki link) on the term's page. --Rolandus 07:03, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

De sectione Scin tu?[fontem recensere]

Salve amice! I'm off for an excavation on Wednesday, and I have no clue about when will I have access to the internet, so I would like to ask if anyone is willing to take over the section Scin tu? for this month. Everything is ready: I've got sentences for the whole of July (and August if necessary), and it is just a matter of changing the formula every two Sundays, starting on the 6th. Thanks a lot!

(und entschuldigen Sie mich, aber: ¡Campeooooones, campeooones!) --Xaverius 08:09, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

Palmares[fontem recensere]

What style should Vicipaedia use for athletes' "palmares"? (And what's the best Latin for them, anyway?) For an example of en:'s text of such achievements, see (only in editing-mode) Samuel Dumoulin. Perhaps honores? IacobusAmor 17:03, 7 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

And how best to render professional road-racing cyclist? For professional (which here means 'earning one's income from', and let's avoid the modernism professionalis), perhaps pro mercede or just the bare ablative, mercede? A road race is most likely a certamen viarium, and a cyclist is well-established as a birotarius. Now how to put these concepts together as succinctly as possible? Ad tempus, for cyclists competing in the various tours, I've been using merely birotarius, but the English wiki uses the fuller form so as to exclude (1) amateur cyclists, (2) cyclists who race in velodromes, and (3) cyclists who race outdoors on unpaved terrain on mountain bikes. Vicipaedia will someday need names for all these ventures. IacobusAmor 23:47, 9 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
salariarus (salaried); certator (competitor); peritus (expert); ad officium (professional); ad quaestum, ad lucrum (for gain/profit); devotor (devotee/amateur); amator (lover/amateur) ?? Professionalis est termninus neolatinus significans qui munus ad lucrum laborat. Possumus dicere athletus salariarus (salaried athlete) vel athletus ad lucrum certatus (athletes competing for money)--Rafaelgarcia 01:22, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Athleta ad lucrum certans, surely; but my impression is that Cicero & Co. might reserve the participle for instances when the athlete is actually in the act of competing, and would here prefer, as an indication of a general situation, a qui clause (qui ad lucrum certat), or some other syntax. But of course this could be wrong! IacobusAmor 03:40, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Tough questions these. But off the cuff, I'd prefer quaestus for merces (which doesn't imply profession, or does it rather weakly), and pro for mere ablative. Further, a professional would be quaestuosus, were it not for the fact that this word is a bit POV (though there are surely historical examples of abusive terms becoming more or less neutral in the long run, and the other way around). In any case, professional road-racing cyclist would be birotarius pro quaestu certans, but admittedly this is clumsy, and besides, the road isn't specified. ## If we are to develop a working terminology for Latin (or any other language), that should be done by working out whole texts in Latin. Textual sentences are necessary, because they subsist in contexts of situation and cotexts (sic!) of reference. I surmise this is the only way (the use-driven way) to condense conceptual complexes to viable-sized terms in a historical process. I'm against bureucratic a priori stipulations. --Neander 01:57, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
What about stipendiarii = [soldiers] receiving pay? --Fabullus 07:57, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
For context, here's an example in the English wikipedia: "Fabian Cancellara (born 1981-03-18) is a Swiss professional road bicycle racer for UCI ProTeam Team CSC." (The double Team could be arising here from a mistake (!): if another article in the English wikipedia and the weight of the evidence at Google are to be believed, the trademark name is UCI ProTour, not UCI ProTeam.) That's the pattern we're seeking for (eventually) several hundred articles about such athletes. Here's a fuller potential version of the pattern: "Mark Cavendish (natus Mannae 21 Maii 1985) is a British professional road bicycle racer [or: 'road-racing bicyclist'], who specializes in sprinting for Team Columbia, an American team that participates in UCI ProTour events." (Or ". . . a specialist in sprinting, who rides/races for. . . .") Does that context help? As to nationalities: TV presenters usually characterize the teams by the nation where their sponsor is based, so Mark Cavendish was born in and resides in the Isle of Man, but his team, Team Columbia, is an "American team." ¶ Since the team is obviously a "professional" one, maybe a mention of payment can be omitted. ¶ Btw, is it politically accurate to call a person of the Isle of Man "British"? If not, what's the Latin for "Manx"? ¶ As for the bare ablative, Cassell's finds it in an idiom in Cicero & Livy: conducere aliquem mercede, which I take to be 'to hire someone for pay'. ¶ Btw, I gather that some of these professional athletes will be competing in this summer's Olympics; didn't the Olympics use to exclude professional athletes? IacobusAmor 03:40, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

NEWS: Gen-Bot-Experiment in der Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

How bots can be useful, how stubs can be helpful and how the English and German WP are different ;-)

http://futurezone.orf.at/it/stories/291189/ (German)

--Rolandus 06:38, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

checking out systematis nuntiorum[fontem recensere]

OrbiliusMagister s.d.,

dear Latin lovers (lovers of latin language :-]),

Recently I was asked to check out the mediawiki messages in la.wikisource. I accepted. Now I'm having three browser tabs with la.source-la.pedia and it.source (my motherlanguage) Nuntia systematis open. Obviously if I find something noteworthy I'll write it in the mediawiki talk page looking for som feedback. I want this to be an occasion to get our interfaces better, so be patient if you'll see me asking for clarification or proposing some emendationes. I'm a Latin lover too - εΔω 22:29, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but you might as well do the translation directly at translatewiki:. Translation work done at la.wikipedia or at la.wikisource only affects that particular project, while translation work done at translatewiki gets added to the MediaWiki software regularly (about every one or two days) and is thus directly available to all projects using MediaWiki. --UV 22:48, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm referring to old messages. As long as new ones are concerned I trust you translators. Blindly. By the way: what does -technically- mean {{grammar:ablative|{{SITENAME}}}}? Is there a way to teach Mediawiki the five declensions? - εΔω 07:58, 11 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
There is also a number of old messages that have not yet been translated or that need attention on translatewiki:! Not even all new messages currently get translated to Latin.
About the grammar magic word: The Latin language support in MediaWiki has a very limited declension functionality, just enough to correctly form the sitenames currently in use on Wikimedia projects in the genitive, accusative and ablative so that these forms can be safely used in MediaWiki interface messages:
nominative genitive accusative ablative
Vicipaedia Vicipaediae Vicipaediam Vicipaedia
Victionarium Victionarii Victionarium Victionario
Vicilibri Vicilibrorum Vicilibros Vicilibris
Vicinuntii Vicinuntiorum Vicinuntios Vicinuntiis
Vicicitatio Vicicitationis Vicicitationem Vicicitatione
Vicifons Vicifontis Vicifontem Vicifonte
Communia Communium Communia Communibus
Vicispecies Vicispeciei Vicispeciem Vicispecie
Viciversitas Viciversitatis Viciversitatem Viciversitate
In case you are interested in the code, this is technically implemented in LanguageLa.php. --UV 08:25, 11 Iulii 2008 (UTC)


Help me: Sallustio, Epistola Ad Caesarem II[fontem recensere]

Hi guys, can someone help me with the Sallustio's "Epistola Ad Caesarem II"?? I've tried to translate it, but I can't. Please help me, it's important... Here some words:

"Pro vero antea obtinebat, regna, atque imperia, fortunam dono dare, item alia, quae per mortalis avide cupiuntur: quia et apud indignos saepe erant, quasi per lubidinem data; neque cuiquam incorrupta permanserant. Sed res docuit, id verum esse, quod in carminibus Appius ait, « Fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae:" atque in te maxume, qui tantum alios praetergressus es, uti prius defessi sint homines laudando facta tua, quam tu laude digna faciundo. Ceterum uti fabricata, sic virtute parta, quam magna industria haberi decet, ne incuria deformentur, aut corruant infirmata. Nemo enim alteri imperium volens concedit: et, quamvis bonus atque clemens sit, qui plus potest, tamen, quia malo esse licet, formidatur. Id evenit, quia plerique rerum potentes perverse consulunt: et eo se munitiores putant, quo illi, quibus imperitant, nequiores fuere."

If you can send me the translation of the whole opera (http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistola_ad_Caesarem_II), I'll be always in debt with you.

Thanks a lot... ;)

Nick

Tournesol.png Salve usor ignote! — Vin tu usor cum nomine hic fieri?

Itan? ... macte, imprime hic !
Català | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Magyar | Nederlands | Norsk | Polski | Română | Pусский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe


Being not anonymous might help getting an answer ;-)

--Rolandus 06:05, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just don't have time. Sallust (or even pseudo-Sallust) isn't exactly easy going, and you want the whole work?? But, it's true, there doesn't seem to be a translation on the Web. If I may ask, since your mother tongue isn't English (the expression "the Sallustio's" rather betrays you there!) why do you want an English translation?
[Added a moment later:] There's a Latin translation site aimed at lazy Italian students here, with a certain amount of Sallust already on it. Not for a moment implying that you're a lazy Italian student, Nick, but could there be something helpful here? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I would be up for it, Nick, but not (at the risk of sounding like a bit of an ass) without some sort of quid pro quo. I estimate a polished version in English would take me almost 3 hours. And as interesting as it might be, I don't care too much about the history to make that worth the effort without something in return (besides, of course, your eternal debt ;]). Have anything to offer?--Ioscius (disp) 11:30, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Contributors to Vicipaedia don't ordinarily do other people's homework from scratch, but if you were to post a question on a specific syntaxical problem, perhaps you'd get a useful reply. An angler has to know which bait to use for which fish. ::winkwink:: You'll probably elicit the same sentiments if you ask in the Latin discussion group over at Google Groups. ¶ Here's a useful tidbit, however: in English, the traditional name is Sallust, not Sallustio. IacobusAmor 16:10, 15 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks a lot to all for the answers you gave me...but I'm trying (with bad results)to translate it by myself. Yes, I'm Italian but I prefer translate to English from Italian rather than to Latin from Italian! Thanks however...;) Nick

Request for bot approval:User:Kwjbot[fontem recensere]

--Kwj2772 14:43, 11 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

According to Vicipaedia:Automata#Rules for running a bot in the Latin vicipaedia, your bot is free to start editing. (If your bot does many edits and looks reliable, we may decide to grant your bot the bot status later.) --UV 21:09, 11 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Nominativus Iesse vel Iessae?[fontem recensere]

Gualteri Reptilari, mutasti nomen Iesse ad Iessae, et dicis "Iessae Latinius est." Quae attestationes pertinent? In Bibliis Sacris, nomen est Iesse (vel Jesse); e.g., "Obed autem genuit Jesse. Jesse autem genuit David regem" (Matt. 1:5). Forma genetiva est Isai apud Ruth 4:17 (forma quod nominativa videtur apud Liber Primus Samuelis 17:12). Ubi in Bibliis Sacris nominativum Iessae invenis? IacobusAmor 13:05, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

In Victionario Anglico scriptum est Jesse a Graeco Antiquo Ἰεσσαί derivare, quid Iessae translitteratur. Iesse videtur neutrum tertiae declinationis magis quam masculinum. Praeterea Minor est agnomen et pro hoc non oportet virgula post cognomen familiare ponere! (e.g. Marcus Porcius Cato Minor) Gualterius Reptilarius scripsit 09:41, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Melius fortasse in disputationem paginae pergere? Ibi commentum addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 21 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Nuntii and Formula:Nuntii[fontem recensere]

I don't understand the system for dealing with old news (if indeed there is a system).

  1. Would it be OK to remove the remaining section of 2007 news from Formula:Nuntii and put it in 2007?
  2. Would it be OK to remove the link to n:, labelled Vicinuntii, which at present appears at the end of Formula:Nuntii? Perhaps it could be replaced with links to 2007 and preceding years. It took me a long time to work out where to search for the apparently missing news from 2007 and 2006, and the link to n: is no use at all! But the link is protected with a warning message, I don't know why.
  3. Would it be OK to remove years 2004 to 2006 from Vicipaedia:Nuntii? They seem to be duplicated at 2004, 2005 and 2006. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

For 2007, have you noticed that someone obliterated November & December? If I recall correctly, I protested at the time, but nobody joined me in caring. IacobusAmor 20:45, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I think those two months are still at the bottom end of Formula:Nuntii; but if there's anything missing we had better bring it back from the history. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
No objection to your proposals. The link to n: is currently useless because there is no wikinews in Latin yet (cf. wikinews in English at wikinews:) and there is not much hope that people will start a Latin wikinews soon. --UV 21:18, 17 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks to you both, I have done as I suggested. The way it works, for the present, is as follows.
  1. Vicipaedia:Nuntii consists of formulae and links only. It is a frame page to contain the current Formula:Nuntii plus links to earlier years.
  2. Whenever the current Formula:Nuntii seems too long, the oldest items can be taken from the bottom of it and pasted into 2008.
I don't believe that anything was lost when Usor:Vulpinus was sorting out the news, a few months back. I think he was doing roughly the same thing that I have done. In any case, it would all still be there in the history of Formula:Nuntii. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Mudhoney article in strange order[fontem recensere]

Hi!

I just noticed that the Discography of the Mudhoney article is somehow "separated" by the following catagories (Fontes and Nexus externi), but when I try to change this, it's not visible like that in the "recensere"-mode. Everything is at its correct place, as far as I can tell. Where does this come from?

Thanks for your answers. --Passera 05:45, 21 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the table, it had two headers. Does this help? --Rolandus 07:27, 21 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Londinii aut Londini?[fontem recensere]

Londinii aut Londini?--Massimo Macconi 11:00, 23 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Bradley's Arnold (#213): "The Locative case, answering to the question, where? at what place? has a form distinct from the ablative only in certain words. Rōmae, at Rome; Londinī, at London." IacobusAmor 11:23, 23 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, but what I do not understand with the locative (which has the same form as the genitiv) is if we have two "ii" or only one"--Massimo Macconi 20:38, 23 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the spelling was in flux during the period usually taken to be that of classical standard Latin: "The genitive of nouns in -ius or -ium ended, until the Augustan Age, in a single -ī: as, fīlī, of a son; Pompêī, of Pompey (Pompêius)" (Allen & Greenough 49.b, with a footnote: "The genitive in -iī occurs once in Virgil, and constantly in Ovid, but was probably unknown to Cicero"). IacobusAmor 21:30, 23 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you have a grammar book, Iacobe! I remember the two forms as being more or less alternative; I dared not plunge in and say so because I couldn't recall any details. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
The locative and genetive, even though they often coincided, have a different origin (e.g. domi vs. domūs or Karthagini vs. Karthaginis). Is it certain that single -i instead of -ii is also permitted for the locative? --Fabullus 11:33, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
According to Sihler: "'The loc.sg. has the same form as the gen.sg.' is a convenient rule of thumb for L[atin], especially as it serves for both the first and the second declensions." So theoretically both could be used. (Though as far as the longer form -ii goes, he states—for genitives anyway—that it was more common in common nouns, and proper nouns were more likely to retain the original long -ī. Whether the same tendency holds for the genitive, I don't know.) —Mucius Tever 21:56, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
[At the very moment you wrote that, I was about to add:] But just recently Fabullus, at Disputatio:Regalis Societas Londini, suggested that the -ii could be replaced by -i only in the genitive, not in the locative. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
The implication in Bradley's Arnold is precisely the opposite! IacobusAmor 12:04, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Does Bradley's Arnold provide a reference? Preferably to a poet, because then the metre rules out the possibility of a typo. Or to an ancient grammarian explicitly stating what we are now talking about. --Fabullus 12:31, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked for occurrences of "Brundisi", which seemed a likely example. There are two cases of Brundisi in the Bellum Alexandrinum (44.1 and 44.4) which are locatives, if I mistake not. However, the real Caesar in the Civil War seems to use Brundisii as locative, Brundisi as genitive (see especially 1.25, where both forms occur). But then when I look at Cicero's letters, the locative seems to be Brundisi in ad Atticum, Brundisii in ad familiares. In other words, it may depend more on manuscripts and editors than on the author. All right, so, as Fabullus suggests, what about poets? I ought to have remembered "Brundisii sargus bonus est" from Ennius's Hedyphagetica, and -ii is confirmed by the metre (dreadful though Ennius's metre seems to be in that poem); but really, the question is, can single -i occur as a locative, and unfortunately I find no other cases in Latin poets. Try another place-name instead, perhaps. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I think Horace, Satires 2.3.168, Canusi is a locative, isn't it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Canusi here can be a locative. If it were, it would be adverbial and would go with the verb divisse, to the effect that the division itself would have to take place at Canusium. Here however Canusi (if I'm not mistaken) is attributive with duo praedia only, which calls for a genetive, even though this genetive is used to indicate the location of duo praedia. --Fabullus 19:48, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. I was reading hastily. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Allen and Greenough (hic) cite the locative Lanuvi ("at Lanivium"). It is possible however that they took this form from Cicero's letters to Atticus, where we find such locatives as Lanuvi, Brundisi, Anti, Acti, Dyrrachi. Yet, as Andew remarked above, this may depend more on manuscripts (and modern editors, I would add) than on the author. --Fabullus 13:25, 25 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Commentarius Nucleum[fontem recensere]

Why can't I move this (impossibly titled) article to Nucleus? Is a redirect interfering? Would someone else like to have a go? In any case, the title here, inflicted upon Vicipaedia by a tyro, has to change! IacobusAmor 13:51, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Rafaelgarcia remedied the problem. In fact, there already was a page Nucleus, therefore it was not possible to move any page there. This is a safety measure to avoid that two different pages get mixed up. See Vicipaedia:Movere. Greetings, --UV 20:40, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Disputatio Formulae:In progressu[fontem recensere]

quia non {{in fieri}}?--85.1.159.83 04:57, 25 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Modo consentior tibi "in progressu" non summam Latinitatem esse, sed "in fieri" non est Latinitas. Quid significat "in fieri"? Anglice "in to become"...? --Ioscius (disp) 23:15, 25 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
scilicet non est lingua Latina classica sed lego in Il latino in tribunale, Ed. giuridiche Simone, Napoli 1999, pag. 110:"in fieri: si dice di una situazione in evoluzione"--Massimo Macconi 07:26, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

in fiendo

92.195.34.44 19:35, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ego, sicut Ioscius, credo in fieri minime linguam Latinam olet. Eandem rem dico de in progressu.
Quid enim? Opus imperfectum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Opus imperfectum ita!--Rafaelgarcia 12:41, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
In fieri is perhaps is a mixed Italian - Latin word? My vocabularies are not clear :::*Devoto-Oli, Il dizionario della lingua italiana": "In fieri loc. lat., in it. loc. attr. ~ in via di formazione o di attuazione. Destinato a rimanere a lungo incompiuto"--Massimo Macconi 13:09, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
  • De Agostini, "In fieri, lat. in divenire; loc. usata in funzione di agg. per indicare qualcosa che è invia di formazione, di elaborazione; progetto, lavoro in fieri--Massimo Macconi 13:13, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I think maybe "mixed Italian-Latin" is right. Is in divenire good Italian? If so, I guess the Latin phrase was based on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that it is not rather mixed italian-latin but a juridical latin term (i.e. legal jargon, but nonetheless pure latin) obtained by contraction of a fuller expression(s) as a short-hand. By itself the expression makes no sense and would appear blatantly ungrammatical. However, I'm just guessing that it may stand for the set of expressions of the type "id est in lite fieri", "id est in iudicio fieri", "id est in carcere fieri", etc. (meaning: it is to become/be finished during litigation, during judgment, during jail, ...) so that as a short-hand the lawyers would say about something to be finished (not yet done) "That's "in fieri"". Anyway we should avoid jargon as a rule, but the unfathomable "in fieri" definitely deserves a page of its own.--Rafaelgarcia 13:58, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Georgius Bushius?[fontem recensere]

Nuper Gualterius noster paginam Georgius W. Bush ad Georgius W. Bushius movit, quia sic bis terve appelletur in Ephemeride. Quamvis magni aestimer redactores Ephemeridis eorumque iudicium, non semper nobis sequendi sunt, praesertim cum hac de re inter se dissentiant: saepe in Ephemeride quoque Georgius W. Bush scribitur, ut videri potest hic. --Fabullus 10:33, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

NB Ephemeridem nusquam "Bushius" nominativo uti. Immo, semper, ut videtur, "Bush" scribitur, ubi nominativo est opus. In casibus autem obliquis nomen Bushii interdum declinatur, quod mea quidem opinione melius est intellectu, praesertim cum sine praenomine scribitur. Egomet ipse item facio de Rawlsio scribens speroque fore, ne quis Sancto Bürocratio serviens huic usui interveniat (nisi forte perperam declinavi). De Kantio nescio sed valde dubito, an ipse aut aequales "Kantius" nominativo usi sint. Potius coniectarim nomen Kantii in obliquis praesertim casibus declinari, nominativum autem casum esse "Kant".
Confiteor me numquam vere intellexisse, unde sit tanta cura praenominum Latine reddendorum riteque declinandorum, cum tamen in continuo textu exarando multo rarius adhiberi soleant praenomina quam gentilicia. Immo quam expeditissime gentilicio utimur nomine longiorem textum de homine quodam exarantes. Sed de praenominibus taceo. Sint ut sunt, dummodo de gentiliciis remaneat libertas ratione utendi. --Neander 20:18, 27 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Neander, verum dicis! Puto id solum esse sic quod inter linguas Europeas praenomina minus mutant et paene semper praenominis Latinis similes sunt. Sed ut Billy Joel cantabat, ``Ignem non inchoavimus!.
De nomine Kantii, Kantius ipse scripsit suum nomen sic et fuit in usu ubique, ut potes videre hic: Kantius in Google Libris
--Rafaelgarcia 02:26, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Amice, hoc repertorio me paene oppressisti. Verum nondum destiti dubitare, an Immanuel noster ipse cum aequalibus "Kantius" nominativo usus sit. Specimina enim analogistica a te prolata videntur plerumque ab MCM saeculo esse oriunda. Sin autem ea aspicimus scripta, quae Immanuel noster ipse sua Latinitate exaravit – scilicet De igne (1755), Nova dilucidatio (1755), Mataphysica (1756) – videmus nusquam "Kantius" nominativum. --Neander 02:35, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Evidenter verum dicis. Sicut cum Newtono videmus, saepe ea aetate nomen Latinizatum non adhibetur; sed inveni hoc per Googlem de usu "Kantius" a ipso proposito. Et videmus supra quod saepe nomen "Kantius" in litteris Latine postea scriptis adhibitum erat. Nonne sufficit ut "Kantius" utimur?--Rafaelgarcia 03:48, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Doleo quod Stuckenbergii librum legere nequeo, excepto excerptulo quo "As scholars sometimes Latinized their names, he proposed to write his " Kantius," on the title-pages of his books, ..." dicit. Utinam ipsissima verba Kantii referat, nec nominativi formam ex casibus obliquis analogice conclusam (ut fecit qui contra testimonium philologicum "Bushius" lemma olim scripsit). Sed sint ut sunt, per me licet et "Kantius" et "Kant" nominativis uti. --Neander 22:16, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Civilization Maya[fontem recensere]

Hi Guys! Could you help me out with this paragraph below to translate into latin? Thank you for your time and effort.--Jondel 23:33, 29 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Le mayas es un cultura e civilisation antique de America Central, que es traditionalmente ubicate in le Peninsula de Yucatan (Mexico), Peten (Guatemala), Honduras e El Salvador. Le cultura maya antique (300 a.C.-900 d.C) habeva grande pyramides (Chichen Itza, Copan, Tikal, etc.), duo calendarios (un calenda solaria e un lunaria) e un systema de numeration base vinti.

  • For the first line I would lie to propose this:Maia est civilizatio antiquus ex Americae Centrali, quod traditione positus in Peninsula Iucataniae (Mexicunius), Peten (Guatimaliae), Honduriae, et Salvatoriae.
    Maia est civilizatio antiquusantiqua ex Americae CentraliCentrae, quod quae traditione positusconstituta in Peninsula Iucataniae (MexicuniusMexicania), Peten (Guatimaliae), Honduriae, et Salvatoriae.
  • For the second line I would like to propose:Culturae maiae antiquae (300 a.C.-900 d.C) sunt scripturae et grande pyramides (Chichen Itza, Copan, Tikal, etc.), duo Calendae (una calenda solaria et altera lunaria), et una systema numerationis basis vicenae.
Jondel have you ever heard of cases and gender? that prepositions govern certain cases? that adjectives and nouns they modify must agree in gender and case? It almost seems like you are purposefully are messing up the cases and genders and preposotions in order to make a point? Perhaps recruiting for esperanto or whatnot can be accomplished by other means. Most people here are not for the sake of creating international language, but more interested in learning to express themselves in latin. Perhaps, if learning latin is indeed your purpose, then it would be more profitable if you tried to learn a little latin grammar (it's not hard to learn) before trying to translate pages. Until you learn the endings and such, you can also check yourself for example using the Words program
http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/showcase/whitakerwords.html
--Rafaelgarcia 01:11, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Rafael, thank you for your encouragement. It will go a long way. I am trying my best to achieve gender agreement. I thought there was agreement in my proposed sentences. I intend to lean latin. I refuse to believe that latin grammar is hard. Give me, even just a spoon and I will put the effort to move the mountain with the spoon. However, I am using interlingua(the original is interlingua not esperanto) as a bridge language to learn latin. Please don't tell me you don't understand the interlingua original.--Jondel 01:29, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I'm rechecking gender agreement now.--Jondel 01:41, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Prepositions govern specific cases, ab, de and ex for instance govern the ablative case, which among other things indicates separation. I don't see the point of bridge language which is not your first language since I suspect there aren't many interlingua books dedicated to help people learn latin grammar; why not learn from your own first language, either english or spanish for which there exist many excellent introductions to latin, for free on the internet? Also for which there exist many lexica?--Rafaelgarcia 02:40, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Aren't the ablatives correct in the first sentence? I'm assuming Maia is female. Perhaps singular? Look. I'm sorry to make you re-teach (ablatives)what Im already reading in the latin grammar books. uhh Im actually reading a Japanese latin grammar book from the city library. Uh I made a correction mostly on the above, to female ablative. I would appreciate if you could look at it. I missed antiquus in the original(no antiqua).--Jondel 02:55, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
No, "ex Americae Centrae" doesn't work. "Central-" apparently isn't a classical root. "P(a)eninsula Iucataniae" = 'Yucatan's peninsula', not '(the) Yucatan Peninsula'. "Calendae" doesn't mean 'calendar'. "Basis" is classically a pedestal, a foundation-wall, and the base of a triangle. "Vicenae" isn't a word. ¶ Instead of the text you're trying to translate, why not start with an encyclopedic-sounding text, e.g., from the Spanish wiki: "La civilización maya habitó una vasta región ubicada geográficamente en el territorio del sur-sureste de México, específicamente en los cinco estados de Campeche, Chiapas (lugar donde se ubica la ciudad principal), Quintana Roo, Tabasco y Yucatán; y en los territorios de América Central de los actuales Belice, Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador, con una historia de aproximadamente 3.000 años." IacobusAmor 03:10, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you pointed that out, Iacobus. I honestly rechecked the each word at whitaker's word. uh for the English to latin, I came up with:
kalendarium, kalendari(i) N (2nd) N 2 4 N [XXXDO]
calendar; ledger/account book (for monthly interest payments);
Iucataniae: I meant to use it as an 'ablative' not genitive. In as word-for-word translated English, as possible: 'The Mayan civilization is (a) civilization (from -ex) the Yucatan(ablative) Peninsula(ablative)'. With Vicenae, how do you say: a numeral system with the base 20? Binary is base 2, hexadecimal is base 16.Im going to check now if there latin articles on the different numeral bases.--Jondel 03:54, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I think calendarium is ok, if I understand what you mean by it, and is recommended with this meaning by the Lexicon Latinitatis Recentis as listed by Morgan. Regrettably our calendarium page is in an awful state.
Basis has the meaning of base in mathematics, as a terminus technicus of the discipline. Thus numerus base viginti = number (with the) base 20.
Greek nouns like basis are usually declined in Latin as pure i-stems like turris, i.e. with acc. -im, and abl. -i. See here. --Fabullus 06:54, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Civilizatio is a neo-latin term for which the perfectly good classical equivalents civilis cultus, cultus humanus, and cultus humanus civilisque exist; civilis cultus is recommended by the LRL as listed by Morgan, but the difference between these seemingly is small.--Rafaelgarcia 04:07, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
As with the changes of Civilizatio to civilis cultus, cultus humanus, I guess we should using more classical usages. Regretably 'basis' is not used in the corresponding article of the binary system. Within a certain time period I would like to write or translate the hexadecimal system article unless someone else writes this ahead of me. Hopefully there will be no or a minimum of mistakes. I will be very careful next time with gender agreement. I will be investigating the Morgan lexicon. BTW, I'm also trying to develop my spoken latin. I have to review my C# (computer language) now. (Im at work)--Jondel 06:16, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
De: "Iucataniae: I meant to use it as an 'ablative' not genitive."—Iucataniae is not an ablative form. Where did you get the impression that it is? IacobusAmor 11:32, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Patterned after female declensions, some Greek nouns like cometae, and fifth declensions which end in 'e' like die, re, also sole, rege,arte. (Maybe the ablative should be Iucatania?).Cheers--Jondel 23:42, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, anybody's first guess about Iucatania would be to put it in the first declension. The ending of the nominative cometes doesn't look at all like that of Iucatania, nor do the nominative endings of any of those other words you cite. IacobusAmor 21:56, 31 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to emphasize its being ablative but you are right. Me ineptum. I'm glad you pointed that out. Cheers. :D --Jondel 09:15, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I remember now, I was patterning it after the supposed 'locative' e. g. Roma=>Romae, the first declension locative ends in ae.--Jondel 12:26, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Categoria: "Nati saeculi 10"[fontem recensere]

Cur non "Nati saeculo 10"? IacobusAmor 21:56, 31 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Verum dicis.--Rafaelgarcia 13:09, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Semper conor! Sed vide categoriam "Nati saeculi 10" in Burchardus Wormatiensis. IacobusAmor 13:19, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Oportet UV-Bot uti ut hae categoriae corrigatur, quod omnes anni sunt corrigendi.--Rafaelgarcia 13:30, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Factumst. --UV 11:41, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

"Quicksand"[fontem recensere]

Salvete,
Potest me aliquis dicere quomodo "quicksand" latine reddatur? Valete & gratias ago!
Teutonius (thach.sinh@yahoo.de)

Syrtis = quicksand--Rafaelgarcia 13:08, 1 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Ok... legi apud Traupman quicksand valere ac syrtis, sed in lexico Lewis&Short legendum vobis:
Syrtis , is (f.)
I. gen. Syrtidos, Luc. 9, 710), f., = Surtis, a sand-bank in the sea; esp. on the northern coast of Africa, Syrtis Major, near Cyrenaica, now Gulf of Sidra; and Syrtis minor, near Byzacene, now Gulf of Cabes, Sall. J. 78, 2; Mel. 2, 7; Plin. 5, 4, 4, § 26; Liv. 29, 33; 34, 62; Tib. 3, 4, 91; Prop. 2, 9, 33; Ov. M. 8, 120; Verg. A. 1, 111; 1, 146; 4, 41; Luc. 9, 303; 9, 861; Hor. C. 1, 22, 5; 2, 6, 3; 2, 20, 15; id. Epod. 9, 31; Prud. Apoth. 511.--
B. Trop.: videndum est, ne longe simile sit ductum. Syrtim patrimonii, scopulum libentius dixerim, Cic. de Or. 3, 41, 163 .--Hence,
A. Syrtĭ-cus , a, um, adj., of or belonging to the Syrtis, Syrtian: mare, Sen. Vit. Beat. 14 : solitudines, Plin. 8, 11, 11, § 32 : ager, Sid. Ep. 8, 12 : gentes, Sen. Ep. 90, 17 .
B. Syr-tis , ĭdis, adj. f., Syrtian: gemmae, Plin. 37, 10, 67, § 183 .
Non iam fruor tempore quo ultro rei huic operam dem, ergo postulo tibi, mi Raphael, num habeamus locum huius appellationis? Salutationes ago ex Labaco. --Ioscius (disp) 15:13, 2 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Iosci, syrtis quoque arena incertis dicitur (glossario Morganis), Traupmann autem solam Syrtem dat. Imaginor id esse quod moles arenae in mari supra a Lewis & Short descripta eadem ac "quicksand" est. --Rafaelgarcia 15:34, 2 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Vide quod hic Robinson Crusoëus dicit de syrti; et vide definitionem vocabuli syrtis anglici in: Free Online Dictionary --Rafaelgarcia 16:05, 2 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Gestio tempus quo Ronbinson Crusoeum Latine legam. Gratias, tibi Raphael, ago. --Ioscius (disp) 21:10, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Salvete,
Syrtes sunt arenae (moles) iuxta mare, 'quicksand' est arena (iuxta mare / vel & iuxta flumen) ex qua nonnullae syrtes illae compositae sunt, vel pars syrtis quaedam. Hoc latine reddam 'arena labili, aqua liquefacta (salsa), qua firme haerent animalia, inscii & incauti'. Fortasse lingua latina non habet verbum istud...
Teutonius

Consentior mi non omnino placere hanc syrtin. Et non suasum fuit Robsinson nostrum dixisse de quicksand illo in capitulo. Rogabo certiores... --Ioscius (disp) 21:24, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Per indicia extantia, Sytis tempore classico sola erat nomen molei aquaticae specialis iuxta litus Africanum (vid. en:Gulf of Sidra); evidenter postea nomen adhibetur ut et moles aquatica et arena incertis varii generis designetur.--Rafaelgarcia 22:16, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Vide exemplum Moneta, quod vocabulum designat duos Deos, templum dei illius, locus ubi nummos cudunt, et nummos ipsos. --Rafaelgarcia 22:26, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

"syrtes sunt moles arenae sub aqua secundum litus maris, vel iuxta ripam quae aestu moventur loco, formamque mutant"
(germanice: Sandbank/Untiefe(n), anglice: shoal)
->syrtes quidem non sunt arenae incertae in terra!? Teutonius 17:32, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Forsitan illud Lexicon, sicut multa alia, imperfectum est; multa exempla sunt (vide dua infra continuo Google inventa) quae dant quicksand=syrtis et sand dune et sand bank *The Principles of Latin Grammar (1853), *Adams Latin Grammar(1833);
--Rafaelgarcia 13:11, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
syrtis/syrtes pl. = breve/brevia pl. (quod/quaedam in ora septentrionalis Africae)
->quicksand = arena, limo similis (in litore, vel iuxta flumen) quae aquae fluctu imbuitur, ita ut liquefieri potest cum eam quis (incaute) calcat, ipsumque firme retinens
Teutonius 19:33, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Amabo te dictione quam mavis utere. Refert solum ut te intelligatur. Vide autem quatuor fontes tibi provisos supra quae ad contrarium arguunt:2 libros grammaticae latinae, duo lexica; quaeso quotae fontes habes negantes et cur illos (multos?) melius credimus? --Rafaelgarcia 21:38, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

numquid Rafaël non potes intellegere ea quae scripsi? ego non utor grammaticis ad significationes verborum explicandas, sed ratione sola & dictionariis (ut dictionarium graecum meum). ->syrtis = shoal (shallow [North-African] sandbank) (=ex dictionario Graeco)
->syrtes sub aqua sunt IN MARI ≠ quicksand iuxta aquam IN TERRA est! (=ideo secundum rationem inter se diferunt)
Quis syrtim verbo "quicksand" redit, ille ignorare opinor quod quicksand vere sit!?
->Quicksand pericumlum navigibus minime est (ut syrtes illae), sed animalibus solis! Teutonius 10:19, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Amice, sunt multa vocabula aetatis classicae quae novas significationes per saecula ceperunt; quod saepe accidit in linguis, specialiter lingua latina cuius historia extendit fere 3000 annorum; sunt multa exempla quae egomet scio, scilicet massa, moneta, fomes, frequentia, volumen, chalybs, et caetera; omni in exemplo ad primam significationem nostri maiores addiderunt novas; unum solum lexicon (Graecum?!) minime sufficit ut omnes vocabuli latini significationes sciantur (inclusi illi olim orti e lingua Graeca); hoc specialiter est casu quia inter latine loquentes moderni sunt qui omnia nova vocabula nostrae aetatis negant vel, seu errata, consulto ignorant; hoc in syrtis exemplo indicia in duobus lexicis Latinis et duobus libris grammaticis (et aliis locis supra) monstrant quae ab saeculo XIX, multi auctores latini iam non putabant differentiam illam tam magnam inter iuxta fluminis aquam et iuxta maris aquam; stabasne tu umquam in illa syrti prope Africam? illa est re vera magna et non tam dissimilis insulae verae. Sed,sicut supra iam dixi, mihi placet ut tua optima utaris dictione. Solum quod maxime refert est ut lectores te intellegant, nonne? --Rafaelgarcia 15:42, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

propterea huc in tabernam rogatum veni (quod quicksand sit), quia nempe non inveni exempla (sententias) pro verbo "syrtis" cum significatione periculi peditibus? Haec enim definitio est qua explicatur differentia!
Teutonius 17:47, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Primum videndum est, quo sensu Anglophoni quicksand vocabulo utantur. De quo iam Teutonius noster. Dubium non est, quin quicksand locum e mixtura harenae et aquae enatum significet, qui vim habeat demergendi, si quis pondere suo huius generis locum vel solum inscendat (v. etiam hanc evidentiam). Syrtes autem cumulos ex harena actos significant, quibus naves facile inhaerescunt. (De his etiam locus ille ex Crusoëo allatus dicere videtur.) At harena syrtica per se vix eo magis demergit quam harena dunam efficiens. Vis submergens quicksandii ita fieri videtur, ut aqua subterranea ultro sursum petens levi immisceatur harenae. Ut verum dicamus, Latina sane videtur accurato vocabulo hoc genus soli describenti carere. Neologismo igitur opus esse videtur. Sermoni cotidiano syrtis ut neologismus semanticus per metonymiam renovatus forsitan satisfaciat, sed respiciendum est quicksand reapse geologicum esse terminum technicum. Idcirco satius puto accuratiorem terminum neque ambiguum Latine creari. At qualis sit, iure quaeritur. Harena errans, mobilis, vaga? Quae vocabula eo fortasse falluntur, quod nimis sunt generalia, namque etiam harenam vento motam significare possunt. Quid, si arenam submergentem vel solum submergens dicamus? Nescio. --Neander 23:02, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Hic tamen est alium lexicon quae attestat syrtis Latine quoque dicit "quicksand": Words:
syrtis, syrtis N (3rd) F [XXXEC] uncommon
sandbank, quicksand; (esp. one on the coast of North Africa);
Sed si melius tibi sonat solum submergens, agedum :-) Non puto hoc de syrti maximi momendi est. Tarde, autem, vide in Ephemeride commentationem novam de Robotoribus. Hic "Robotor", cum robotum vel automaton scriberi possunt, re vera me irritat. --Rafaelgarcia 00:11, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Et tamen alium lexicon A phraseological English-latin dictionary by Charles Duke Yung (1855)--Rafaelgarcia 20:29, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

qicksand 'arena submergens' nominari non posse opinor, quia non submergitur arena ipsa, sed aquae fluctu imbuitur ac movitur ita ut liquefiat = arena mobilis? (cf. linguae francogallica & lusitana)
Teutonius 08:58, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Num hoc recte intellexisti? Arena submergens = 'arena quae (aliquid) submergit' = 'arena quae efficit, ut aliquid submergatur'. (Submergere est verbum transitivum.) Arena mobilis, ut supra dixi, mea quidem sententia nimis generalem habet sensum, namque etiam arenam vento mobilem significare potest. Linguae Romanae suos habent consensus historice traditos, sed nulla causa necessaria est, cur ad Latinitatem pertineant. --Neander 20:04, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Arena submergens, mihi oportet dicere, est aptissima optimaque locutio duobus vocabulis adhibens, quam umquam audivi quaquam in lingua, "quicksand" significans.--Rafaelgarcia 21:04, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

omnes qui "syrtim" verbo "quicksand" reddunt, ii modo haurire eodem unico fonte (opere) arbitror, atque non recte aut 'syrtim' aut verbum 'quicksand' intellexerunt!? Ideo numerus fontium illorum (mea) non multum refert!
Teutonius 08:58, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

At harena syrtica per se vix eo magis demergit quam harena dunam efficiens. = And/but the syrtic sand by itself (vix) the more drowns as sand a dune forms. ???

Potius: "But syrtic sand by itself is hardly more drowning [= such that it drowns an object] than sand that forms a dune." Quonam alio modo hoc Latine reddi velis? --Neander 20:04, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

At harena syrtica per se vix (eo?) magis demergit quam harena dunam efficiens. -> eo magis = the more // magis quam = more than -> duna = dubio an verbum latinum sit!? eum reperire (dictionariis meis) non possum... (dune = collis arenosus?) Teutonius 09:08, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Licet ad rem ("quicksand") parum pertineat, de duna videas Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus (composuit J.F.Niermeyer; Brill: Leiden &c. 1997), p. 362 (s.v. duna). --Neander 19:31, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Novae formulae[fontem recensere]

Hodie Usor 200.106.69.22 multas novas formulas creavit, non intelligo si vandalismus est. Auxilium peto--Massimo Macconi 07:15, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Puto eum ignorare nostram normam de imagines vetando. Delevi omnes formulas creatas.--Rafaelgarcia 22:13, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

formula = template !?

Teutonius 08:56, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ita template=formula apud Vicipaediam.--Rafaelgarcia 14:06, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Classical & Medievalis[fontem recensere]

Morning. I have a question: on vicipaedia which kind of latin is suggested? If i've 2 terms for the same thing, one in classical latin and other in medieval latin, what i have to use here?

And, 2° question, how is the correct declination for the name of cities and town? Lord Hidelan 09:02, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Could you give the two terms in question? Generally, if they are comeplete equivalent, we prefer the classical term, but I can see some instances where a medieval term is to be preferred, e.g. a technical term, or sometimes there is a political or geographical term whose meaning is slightly different because of different institutions or political boundaries being in effect.
The correct declination for the names of cities and towns is the one that has been attested already in the literature. First, second, third are all used as far as I know. We use attested names and declensions here, and rather than make things up if we don't have a attested source for a modern latinized version we leave it unlatinized and do not decline it at all.See Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis--Rafaelgarcia 14:54, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO RULE HERE THAT WE SHOULD USE ONLY CLASSICAL, IN FACT THERE ARE MANY ARTICLES WITH NEOLATIN. I DON'T KNOW WHY SOMEPEOPLE ARE INSISTING ON USING CLASSICAL OVER NEOLATIN.--Jondel 13:08, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the Latin usages you're advocating (from Beeson's Primer of Medieval Latin): add or subtract h at your whim (so his & is; hortus & ortus; etc.); replace ancient names of towns with those of nearby tribes (so Lutetia becomes Parisius); change the gender of numerous nouns (so mons becomes neuter); often use the dative in place of a genitive, accusative, or ablative; use reflexive pronouns nonreflexively (so sibi = ei); invent active forms for deponent verbs; use the imperfect for the perfect and the pluperfect for the perfect; instead of oratio obliqua, replace the infinitive with a clause introduced by quod, quia, quoniam, or ut; abandon periodic structure "in favor of a simpler sentence structure, which often differs but little from that of modern languages." IacobusAmor 13:42, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

muter (per mesure disciplinaire) / transfer (for disciplinary reasons) / (straf-)versetzen[fontem recensere]

Quomodo latine exprimatur?--Usor anonymus:92.195.105.177

ad novum locum mutatus ob causas disciplinarias (=moved to a new place due to misbehavior)--Rafaelgarcia 16:48, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
vel potius ob causas castigatorias. --Neander 20:40, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Quomodo imagines in pagina[fontem recensere]

Sciisne quomodo ponere picturas in pagina? - Sempronia

(1) Sempronia, utere signo --~~~~ ut commentiones subscribantur, vide Vicipaedia:Praefatio
(2) vide Vicipaedia:De recensendo ut auxilium et exempla de imagines in pagina imponere invenias.--Rafaelgarcia 16:48, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Gratis bene! Sum nova et ege auxilium ab tempore ad tempore!

Martinus Weinek et Gaspar Capparoni[fontem recensere]

Good evening to you, please you could help to correctly translate me in Latin these two articles? Two actors of a very popular television series concern. But Capparoni is the actor that the day before yesterday has made the birthday and since he is Roman, I have wanted his biography to make Latin, in fact on Wikipedia I have the function of biographer, and I go in almost all the languages that I know for doing better than mine. I now hope that you can help. I thank you in advance.--Lodewijk Vadacchino 14:13, 3 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't help right now: I'm travelling and only have occasional Internet access. I suggest you ask on the Taberna! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
There is no problem, when you have time you can do her/it. I thank you and I apologize me some trouble--Lodewijk Vadacchino 14:10, 5 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone else is interested in Italian television actors? I fear I'm not, so I've moved this query to the Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

file-tang[fontem recensere]

Quomodo latine appelatur istud: [5]

estne strigillus?--Iovis Fulmen 19:35, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Est lima, instrumentum fabrile.--Rafaelgarcia 20:07, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

ita est! sed quod rogare volo, est "cauda limae vel cultri &ct." (anglice: file-tang) quae manubrio inseritur - quomodo latine correcte appellatur?

Cauda mihi sonat apta--Rafaelgarcia 21:45, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Eadem fere metaphora usus equidem dixerim limae spina (sic utique Finnice ... :-) --Neander 23:27, 6 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

scapus? (-limae / cultri / pennae &ct.)
"Der Begriff Scapus (Stamm oder Schaft) bezeichnet in der Anatomie: der Vögel den festen Federkiel bei einer Konturfeder, ..."
-> vide: Scapus=Federkiel --Teutonius 08:55, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Epigrapha[fontem recensere]

Nonnulli commentarii recentiores epigraphis, non lemmatibus, incipiunt. Nonne delenda sunt haec ornamenta? IacobusAmor 12:23, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

E.g.? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:54, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

emungere / efodere[fontem recensere]

Quomodo melius dicam:
- nares digito emungere / (e)fodere mucum e naribus
92.195.94.166 16:52, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Categoriae eruditorum similesque[fontem recensere]

Me aliquantulum paenitet usus categoriarum; nam nonnumquam quaerentem magis impediunt quam adiuvant. Praeterea difficile est in pagina creanda omnes categorias invenire, quae adhiberi debebant. Videte hoc, ut cognoscatis, quid mihi velim. Propositum meum est hoc: Diligenter cogitemus, tunc deleamus nonnullas categorias. --Iovis Fulmen 20:56, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Vidi atque assentior sententiae Roland2 hic expressae, neque scio, an omnes assentiantur? --Iovis Fulmen 21:04, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Adnuo ego. In tuo exemplo, categoriae Categoria:Philologi et Categoria:Professores sunt supercategoriae, ergo contra mores nostros; dico etiam Categoria:Homines Germaniae inutilem esse, quia habemus et Categoria:Eruditi Germanici. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:52, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Me intellegere censeo. Sin autem id studere velim, ut illas categorias planiores faciam, necesse erit _omnes_ "professores" e (super-)Categoria:Professores in subcategorias movere. An haec potius sint categoriae secundum disciplinam an secundum civitatem, illic quaeram! --Iovis Fulmen 19:17, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

In general: Would it be worthwhile to introduce two types of caveat for very general or very special category pages:

  1. (as I suggested on Disputatio Categoriae:Homines): "Memento: Huic categoria non oportet inesse ullas commentationes. Eas move quaesumus in subcategorias"
  2. (for categories such as Categoria:Professores universitatum Berolinensium: "Noli creare subcategorias huius categoriae"

I have been wondering for quite some time if the categories could do with a little cleanup.--Iovis Fulmen 11:58, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I think the cleanup is a very good idea.
I think the first suggested instruction is definitely useful. I am not sure about the second: it is maybe a bit anti-Wikipedian. Your example seems a clear enough case, certainly, but we don't know, in general, which special interests future Vicipaedians will follow, and therefore we can't predict what subcategories might eventually be helpful. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:51, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
In principle, I support the first suggested instruction, although there may be cases where appropriate subcategories do not exist yet and where it may be desirable to add a page to the supercategory instead of creating a subcategory for just one article. The second suggested instruction seems too rigid for me when Vicipaedia grows: de:Kategorie:Hochschullehrer (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) currently has 508 members (and the Humboldt-Universität is just one of the several universities in Berlin!) and it would IMHO be a good idea to split up this category (possibly by century, possibly by field of study). --UV 19:43, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
ok, I agree, I'll forget about the second caveat. As to the first, I'm going to think about how to achieve sufficient consensus and at the same time get it done within a justifiable timespan.--Iovis Fulmen 20:30, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Quomodo dicitur:[fontem recensere]

Ich habe noch nie Latein gesprochen. = Nunquam antea lingua latine locuta sum.

Ich weiß nicht, ob du noch Interesse hast? =Ignoro an tua amplius/porro intersit?

Wie heißt: - Todesanzeige (annotatio / nuntium? mortis) - umbetten (exhumare ad alio in loco iterum sepeliendum?) - alte Jungfer (?) - Zahnstein /Zahnbelag (odontolithos, calculus dentalis, tartarum?) - immer mehr (immo eo magis, amplius, latius?) - Kader (?) - durchpausen (abmalen) - sensor (Tastfühler) 92.195.222.221 07:09, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

ein Zelt aufbauen - tendere? tentorium (vel melius erigere?
die Richtung/Ausrichtung (eines Gebäudes) bestimmen/festlegen = ???
Hydraulik = hydraulica? 92.195.75.132 14:07, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Sehr (vielleicht zu) viele Fragen auf einmal, aber ich versuche diesmal sie alle zu beantworten:
Ich habe noch nie Latein gesprochen. = Nunquam antea lingua latine locuta sum.Numquam antea Latine locuta sum. (wenn weiblich)
Ich weiß nicht, ob du noch Interesse hast? =Ignoro an tua amplius/porro intersit? OK, oder vielleicht besser Nescio an...
Wie heißt: - Todesanzeige (annotatio / nuntium? mortis) Nuntius, nuntium, denuntiatio mortis.
- umbetten (exhumare ad alio in loco iterum sepeliendum?) Grundsätzlich bedeutet "umbetten" auf Lateinisch etwa aliquem in alio loco (oder cubiculo) collocare. "Exhumare" gibt's nicht: corpus, cadaver effodire
- alte Jungfer (?) Virgo vetula
- Zahnstein/Zahnbelag (odontolithos, calculus dentalis, tartarum?) Zahnstein: OK, obschon tartarum ambig ist; kann auch 'Weinstein' bedeuten. Zahnbelag, retrimentum dentarium
- immer mehr (immo eo magis, amplius, latius?) magis magisque
- Kader (?) robur (exercitus, factionis, sim.)
- durchpausen (abmalen) adumbrare (lineamentis) ?
- sensor (Tastfühler) (instrumentum) sensorium.
ein Zelt aufbauen - tendere? tentorium (vel melius erigere? tabernaculum tendere, tentorium ponere
die Richtung/Ausrichtung (eines Gebäudes) bestimmen/festlegen = ??? apparatum aedificii constituere
Hydraulik = hydraulica? OK
--Neander 00:41, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)


Maximas gratias tibi ago, Neander! Teutonius 03:00, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Two technical questions[fontem recensere]

Two technical questions:

1. How do I make a subpage of my personal page (so as to put work in progress on it)?
under quaerere type Usor:IacobusAmor/ProposedSubpageName
click ire
It will say it can't find the page. Click on creare. Now you have your page
Thanks! IacobusAmor 12:58, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
2. Is there any way to make a (long) list print automatically on the screen in X number of columns? IacobusAmor 02:01, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Yes look at the codes provided in the section "Artium exempla" on the page Ars. If you want more than two columns change the instances of 2 to the whatever number X you wish of columns. Here are the relavent codes for a two-column list
<div class="list" style="-moz-column-count: 2; column-count: 2;"> Put your stuff here </div>
--Rafaelgarcia 03:03, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
The coding for the list for "Artium exempla" in Ars says the column-count is 2, but the list prints to my screen as a single column. How about yours? IacobusAmor 12:58, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I get two columns. Maybe try a different browser? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I get only one column. The technique described above is a nonstandard one that is only supported by some browsers. Aside this nonstandard technique, there is no way to make a list print automatically in more than one column. You can, however, use a table with as many columns as you wish to format your list. In this case, you need to specify explicitly where you want one column to end and the next one to begin. --UV 13:08, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I think perhaps you need to make your list long enough before it will split into two columns. Does the section in Ars appear as two columns or one to you?--Rafaelgarcia 13:48, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Oh I just saw the comments by Iacobus above. I didn't realize that it did not universally work on all browsers. Tables are so much more work. Arghh.--Rafaelgarcia 13:56, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I confirmed that I can see only one column using Konqueror: but two columns in Epiphany and Firefox browsers. I don't have Explorer or Safari ad hand to test.--Rafaelgarcia 14:14, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Here's the code for making a simple multicolumn table of bulleted items (page contains other types of tables too) en:Help:List#Multi-column bulleted list--Rafaelgarcia 14:25, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Mille desiderati de Roma antiqua commentarii[fontem recensere]

I've placed a checklist of such terms on a subpage of my personal page. As the proportion of red links in it suggests, it's the kind of list that might better have been prepared on day one, so that contributors willing write on various subjects would have had a stimulus for their efforts at the start of the enterprise. It's deficient here & there, and its organization is unperfect, but it can stand as a record of progress. Its goal is to turn blue and become obsolete! ¶ Experts have pointed out that Vicipaedia is a Latin encyclopedia, not a Roman one, and I agree; but if the Latin wikipedia isn't to have the best articles on the general subject of the culture of ancient Rome, which one is? Hence the list. ¶ A not unimportant part of Roman culture was Greek, but I'm leaving Greek perspectives to Hellenophiles. Andrew? ¶ I've alphabetized Roman names by nomen, not praenomen. This looks to me like the most sensible way of alphabetizing, not least because it shows family relationships at a glance. Several currently constituted categoriae (e.g., "Categoria:Romani antiqui") are hopelessly muddled in this regard. The main alphabetizational problem encountered is with men who, according to our sources, had two, and only two, names. I've alphabetized them by their second name. This procedure is obviously right for Gaius Marius and Marcus Antonius, but it would be wrong if, say, a man fully named "Marcus Flavius X" (genuinely of the Flavian gens) ordinarily ignored his praenomen and historical records of his full name are lacking, so we know him only as Flavius X. In fact, in the later Western empire, Flavius seems to have come to the fore as a praenomen, apparently for men who had no connection with the ancient gens. Likewise a few other such names. IacobusAmor 15:38, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a very useful exercise, and, yes, we ought to do something similar for Greek.
If you check {{Imperatores Romani}} I think you will find that we have entries for all of those on your list, usually under the short names by which they are commonly known. So it's just redirects that are needed.
Alphabetizing by nomen is the way it's done in Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft edd. G. Wissowa et alii (Stuttgart, 1893-1972 ~ ~) (nearly always). It is awkward when dealing with people who are always known by their cognomina, like Tacitus, but I agree it's the best rule for a reference source to adopt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

QVOMODO DICITVR:[fontem recensere]

Die Ruderstange in den Grund stecken um das Boot daran festzumachen, bis das Wasser wieder steigt.
= infigere contum vado ad navigium (ad eam) alligandum donec aqua/flumen iterum/rursum augeat/augescat/accrescat. ???

vergeblich warten = frustra/nequiquam exspectare ???
den Text am Rand ausrichten = litteras ad marginem aequare ???
Teutonius 19:18, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Teutoni, cur rogas? Quos commentarios in Vicipaedia scribis? Eos non video. IacobusAmor 21:36, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Quia lingua latina mea adhuc non satis bona est ad commentarios scribendos!? Postea (me satis intellecturo linguam latinam) libenter scribam comentarios - sed adhuc etiam inscio differentiam inter comentarios & allocationes quamnam esse? Ideo hoc loco (in taberna sola) scribere malo... Teutonius 23:01, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

...hm, non inveni loci, quibus commentarii scribere possim... ubi sunt?
Teutonius 23:50, 10 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

verba allata: "Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!" --Rafaelgarcia 16:03, 4 Augusti 2008 (UTC) ->ex pagina usoris mea --Teutonius 00:44, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

?Quid rogas hic? Quomodo paginam invenire? Quomodo creare? Vide eg de:Hilfe:Neue Seite anlegen--Rafaelgarcia 20:49, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

How to say 'world record'[fontem recensere]

How to say 'world record' in Latin? or any kind of record, for that matter? Cassell's advises: "render by periphrasis, e.g.: he broke all —s as a runner, tam celeriter quam nemo antea currebat"; but this is (1) a long way of saying something for which we need a short word or phrase, as in tables, and (2) it will differ by sport, making a runner & a swimmer travel celeriter, a diver & a gymnast move perhaps pulchre or accurate, a pole-vaulter jump alte, and I don't know what for archers & wrestlers, whereas we need a single term to cover all sports, and for numerous kinds of nonsports-related "records" too. Since a record of the past can be a memoria, maybe that would be a word to work from. Suggestions? IacobusAmor 02:50, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Morgan gives "world record / culmen mundanum [Soc. Lat.]; principatus mundanus (Helf.)", I think it fails to capture the idea of a record though, unless in context. For example, if you say " mundanum natationis 100 metrorum culmen est 10 minuta et 23 secunda. Or perhaps the table can provide the context, by the nature of the table. Maybe there could be more of a one word way of saying the idea.--Rafaelgarcia 04:09, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
OK, culmen mundanum = 'mundane summit'—except that Cassell's has mundanus only as a noun (implying that the adjective is Late Latin, as Merriam-Webster's English dictionary confirms), and Livy has hic ornatus mundi 'harmony of the universe', rather than ornatus mundanus, so maybe the genitive is OK here, and we can (also) accept culmen mundi (civitatis, urbis, universitatis, Olympiorum, etc.). What say? IacobusAmor 12:54, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Culmen mundi sounds Ok too. Though it is noteworthy that Lewis and Short, do not list mundanus ( = "of or belonging to the world, mundane") as being late latin. --Rafaelgarcia 02:01, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
According to Cassell's, it's classical Latin if it's the noun mundanus 'a citizen of the world' (used by Cicero), but apparently not (or so rare as to be ignored) if it's an adjective. IacobusAmor 02:15, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it does appear that 'mundanus' only appears once in Cicero ("Socrates quidem cum rogaretur cuiatem se esse diceret, 'mundanum' inquit; totius enim mundi se incolam et civem arbitrabatur"). But the adjective does appear to become pretty common afterwards; it's used by Apuleius, Ammianus Marcellinus, the Historia Augusta, Augustine of Hippo... —Mucius Tever 02:28, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Traupman for 'record' in the sense of 'top performance' gives 'palma.' BTW Lewis and Short does give the adjective sense of 'mundanus' as "late Lat." —Mucius Tever 02:28, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I misunderstood the Lewis and Short entry on Mundanus, because it seemed to be indicating that anima mundana was lat latin. not the whole use as adjective, but on re reading, I think you're right.
mundānus, a, um, adj. 2. mundus,
I of or belonging to the world, mundane.
I Adj. (late Lat.): anima mundana, Macr. Somn. Scip. 2, 16: annus, a year of the world, mundane year, consisting of fifteen thousand years, id. ib. 2, 11: ora, i. e. caelestis, Avien. Arat. 216. —
II Subst.: mun-dānus, i, m., an inhabitant of the world, a cosmopolite, as translation of κόσμος, = mundi incola et civis, Cic. Tusc. 5, 37, 108.
--Rafaelgarcia 05:31, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Palma is an interesting possibility, but it might confuse our French friends, for whom palmarès means not quite the same thing. IacobusAmor 03:01, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Manual for new and small Wikipedias[fontem recensere]

Hello, at Meta there are pages created to help new and small Wikipedias: Manual and Wikipedia and help pages. You are welcome to have a look and comment. Kind regards--Ziko 22:47, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Need help translating[fontem recensere]

I need to translate the phrase "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Thank you! [Scripsit usor ignotus 76.190.130.159]

I don't know the correct idiomatic expression, but my shot is "Tunc illud bonum consilium mihi videbatur".(=then that thing a good idea to me seemed.)--Rafaelgarcia 05:20, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Anglicum verbum relay[fontem recensere]

As in relay race. What's a good Latin term for this? Cassell's doesn't have a suitable classical term for it. IacobusAmor 04:07, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Morgan says antecessorum cursus (LRL);cursus publici (Lev.);cursus alternus [Soc. Lat.]; antecessorum cursus [Latinitas] (Helf.);so the consensus seems to be antecessorum cursus.--Rafaelgarcia 05:10, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've looked up these terms in dictionaries: why would antecessorum cursus 'race of the forerunners, race of the predecessors, race of the advanced guard' be better than cursus alternus 'interchanging race, race by turns, race one after the other'? The latter Latin phrase would seem to describe a relay race more adequately. The only problem I see with it is that its root implies a back-and-forthness of twos, but relay races (as in running & swimming) usually involve fours. Are there attestations in which alternus is used for more than two? IacobusAmor 01:49, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I don't know but looking at Lewis and Shorts entry "In milit. lang., antecessores, the forerunners of the army, the advanced guard (cf. antecursor): speculatores et antecessores, Auct. B. Afr. 12: agminis antecessores, * Suet. Vit. 17. —" it seems that part of the function of the antecessores was to quickly relay messages (news of what lay ahead) backwards down the train (agmen) of soldiers on the move. Thus a relay race is like a practice for them.--Rafaelgarcia 02:26, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
That would be apt here if antecessor A told his news to antecessor B, and B passed it on to C, and C passed it on to D; but if A told D directly (i.e. reported back to headquarters himself), or himself rode down the train of soldiers, telling them as he went, the analogy would fail. The original sense of 'relay' in English (from which the other senses sprang) had nothing to do with soldiers in battle or on the move: it was 'a supply (as of horses) arranged beforehand for successive relief' (Merriam-Webster). Similarly, in a relay race, the second competitor on the same team relieves the first, the third relieves the second, and the fourth relieves the third. It's this successive relieving that's at the core of the concept. Indeed, the Spanish for 'relay' is relevo, and for 'relay race', carrera de relevos. Does the Latin military technical term imply successive relieving? IacobusAmor 03:11, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the roman military to be able to verify that it holds.--Rafaelgarcia 03:27, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
If I were put in a spot and asked not to rely on sources, I think I would have said "cursus alternatus" ="a race done by turns", since words defines: "alterno, alternare, alternavi, alternatus V (1st) [XXXBO] do by turns, vary; alternate, waver, ebb and flow; bear/crop in alternate years"--Rafaelgarcia 15:10, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I agree, so I've made that do for 'relay' in the article on Michael Phelps, the natatorial wunderkind (and the most decorated Olympian since the modern Olympics began, in 1896). IacobusAmor 19:28, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Flash memory[fontem recensere]

Hi Guys, Could I ask , how do we translate Flash memory?--Jondel 16:45, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC) Note the idea for the word flash came from camera flash (fulgeo?).

My stab at it: Memoria fulgurea (lightning flash memory)--Rafaelgarcia 17:02, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be surprising if the term alludes to the English idiom quick as a flash, and its underlying reference therefore is to speed, rather than light. 'Instantaneous, immediate, ready, now present, at hand' (says Cassell's) is praesens, which might give you memoria praesens. IacobusAmor 17:45, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
Actually, flash memory is much much slower than regular memory, although some kinds are faster than using a harddrive for storage. Flash has to do with the method of imprinting the information, which creates an image that does not go away after the power is turned off, just like the flash of a camera.--Rafaelgarcia 19:02, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC).
Could we isolate a meaning of Instantaneous-immediate and not present? fulgerea seems great(lightning flash). Uhh , I would like to post my latin translation in a short while.--Jondel 17:56, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Body proper: The Memory flash is an evolution from the EEPROM memory and enables multiple positions of memory to be written and deleted in one operation of the program per electric implse. In contrast, older devices only allowed either to write or read at each single cell each round program state. Thus, the flash can function at a speed far superior when the systems employ reading and writing to various points of this memore at the same time. (Interlingua) Le memoria flash est forma evoluite del memoria EEPROM que permitte que multiple positiones de memoria sia scribite o delite in un mesme operation de programmation per medio de impulsos electric, in contrasto con le anteriores que solmente permitte scriber o deler un singule cella cata vice. Pro isto, "flash" pote functionar a velocitates multo superior quando le systemas emplea le lectura e scriptura in differente punctos de iste memoria al mesme tempore.

Voila:

Memoria flash(?fulgera?) est specie evolutio ex memoria EEPROM et habilitat numerosos(acc) locos(acc?) memoriarum esse scribi eradique in uno gradu aut vice programmationis per impulsum electronicum, in contrario anteriores qui modo permitte scribire aut eradere un singule cella omne vice aut per unum gradum. Adeo, "flash" potest operare ad velocitates multo celeriter cum systemas adhibeat legendum scribendumque in varios locos memoria simul.

I think the english text you are trying to translate is wrong or misleading. "a speed far superior"... to what? Flash isn't about speed. I'd suggest you'd try translating the english page en:Flash memory.--Rafaelgarcia 19:25, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected! But the suggestion to start with the English wiki is usually a good one. IacobusAmor 19:35, 14 Augusti 2008 (UTC)