Aperire sectionem principem

annos nominandiRecensere

"Annos nominandi" potest scribi "annorum nominandarum"--Marc mage 23:02, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Ouch !  IacobusAmor 00:49, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had a rough night last night, and may not be focusing well enough... but how can that possibly substitute? Surely annus, anni, m.? Systema annos nominandi says "system for/of naming years", systema annorum nominandOrum would say "a system of years needing to be named". Right?--Ioscius (disp) 14:38, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I believe so. Hence my "Ouch." IacobusAmor 15:56, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this discussion is from a long time ago, but isn't "systema annorum nominandorum" in fact a normal, even preferred use of the gerundive? Lesgles (disputatio) 22:33, 8 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
Certainly better than "systema annorum nominandArum. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:42, 9 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
True, didn't catch that! Lesgles (disputatio) 01:24, 9 Iunii 2014 (UTC)


Hey Jacob, you keep adding dubsig after this abbreviation. Any good reason why? --Ioscius (disp) 19:56, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of "E. V."Recensere

An anonym has twice altered the explanation to say that this abbreviation represents English "Era Vulgaris". It doesn't, because "vulgaris" is not an English word. But even if it did, it wouldn't be relevant to us, because we are writing Latin, and for us "E. V.", if used in Latin, is an abbreviation of Latin "Æra vulgaris".

I've protected the page briefly, because we don't do edit wars. I hope that will encourage the anonym to be more explicit. The last time the change was made the summarium was "(id est (cf. A. Crowley & "Thelemites"))". If anyone can explain this in full, clear Latin (or English) for the sake of non-Thelemites, that would be great. (I was once called a Thelemite when being introduced as a conference speaker, but I didn't really merit the appellation.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 28 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

For the record: though I added some articles on Crowley and his circle, is somebody else. Of course it's possible that a (certainly tiny, tiny) subset of native speakers of English use the abbreviation e.v. and consider Era Vulgaris an English phrase, but then an attestation is needed, and even then such a (certainly tiny, tiny) fact might go better in a footnote than in the main text. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 28 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
Yes, quite. Just to point up a logical leap or leak embodied in your second sentence, a leap or leak that may have also happened in the mind of I use the abbreviation e.g. when I'm writing English but that doesn't mean that I consider "exempli gratia" an English phrase. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 28 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Capitalise or not?Recensere

In the text, we used to have both Aera Vulgaris and aera vulgaris. Arcansi has made it all small letters, and I've followed. Truth be told, when you search for sources, you will find both versions, sometimes within the same book (the same applies to the abbreviations). My impression though is that more recent sources will rather have small letters. I therefore wonder if we shouldn't move to "Aera vulgaris" now. Sigur (disputatio) 19:47, 10 Iunii 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see this before, but I think you were right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 15 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
I'd lowercase it, but I'd avoid it wherever possible, since, if the era in question is truly ordinary (vulgaris), we don't need to point it out. It would, however, be necessary in passages having the syntax of "from the year 29 a.C.n. to the year 14 p.C.n." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 15 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Aera vulgaris".