Disputatio:Ferrivia

Persona est, cui nomen latinum "tramway/Strassenbahn":is familiaris est? Skvattram 22:47, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Helfer et alii proposuerunt ferrivia strataria. Nota bene: Haec est via, non vehiculum!

Vehiculum vocatur transviaria raeda. usor:Bohmhammel 23.46, 18 Kal. Sept. 2006

Definitio ferriviae

Alterata definitio ferriviae hodiernae diei mihi minus exacta et minus utilis prioris videtur. Quid sentiunt alii de hac quaestione? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:40, 28 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bis-Taurinus. A railway, which consists of two rails (astaria dua/orbitae duae), is the road itself for trains. There's also a monorail, which is another type of railway having only one rail and whose vehicle is also called train. If we would create other types of railways, eg a railway which would have three rails, this one would get its own name, eg "trirail".

Today we have also several types of roads for people, cars and similar vehicles, which can make it complicated. Different languages has also different words for different kinds of roads. Even rules and countries can have different kinds of roads. In English, there are "road", "way", "avenue", "path", and depending on the rules and countries, there are "street", "highway", "freeway", etc.

The exact definition of "train" is a little hidden to most people and it depends on which language we talk about. "Train" is the name for a locomotive and its wagons (ie a "train wagons"). A locomotive is also called "train". But as I said; how "train" is defined depends on which language we talk about. Donatello (disputatio) 00:10, 29 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Hic de lingua Latina et de definitione ferriviae, non traminis, loquimur :) Veterem definitionem haud perfectam censeo, novaque definitione res utiles sed et errores introductos ... Quomodo scribes tu, Bis-Taurine? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 29 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. :) The former Latin text in this article was quite bad and chaotic. The common ways of Latin were "too exaggerated" to express it like that. The ancient Romans wouldn't accept it. I felt I had to improve the structure of Latin in the article. Hope it was okay. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:51, 29 Augusti 2015 (UTC).

Ego definitionem, ut sequitur propono:

"Ferrivia vel via ferrea est orbita, quae plerumque habet duos postes chalybeios, paribus intervallis inter se distantes, qui trabibus connectuntur. Haec trabes e ligno aut concreto aut materia plastica formantur. Trabes postes portantes parvis lapidipus compressis ad terram affigi solentur. Super ferrivias tramina currunt, quae et viatores et merces transportant." COMMENTAMINI! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 16:35, 2 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

It's good. :) Just to add more: I'm unfortunately not fully capable of the high ways in Classical Latin; more in the normal way. I do know that Classical Latin in written form only used high ways. The example you're showing here is good! Please improve the article. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 18:50, 2 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Haec definitio, o Bis-Taurine, mihi magis placet. Hi sunt mei commentarii ad linguam pertinentes: (1) pro duobus postibus velim scribas binas orbitas aut binas regulas, nam postis ad portas et ianuas refertur; (2) non connectuntur sed conectuntur; (3) super ferrivias nimis accurate dicit tramina in parte suprema ferriviarum moveri; melius ferriviis (ablativus viae); (4) "affigi solentur" pleonasmo laborat; dicendum affigi solent. ¶ His mutationibus factis nihil est quod vituperem. Sed facere non possum, quin etiam meam versionem proferam, non quod per se melior sit: "Ferrivia vel via ferrata est via plerumque in binis orbitis chalybeiis consistens, quae paribus intervallis inter se distant et trabibus conexae sunt. Quae trabes e ligno aut concreto aut materia plastica formantur. Trabes orbitas ferriviarias portantes parvis lapidibus compressis in terram infigi solent. Ferriviis tramina currunt, quae et viatores et merces transportant." Neander (disputatio) 21:22, 2 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Myrias?

Is this article really one of the 10,000 almighty articles? It has no link to an equivalent article in the English wiki, which claims to have its entire quota of 10,000 filled up. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:02, 29 Augusti 2015 (UTC)