Faustus

Numeri (continuatio ex disputato paginae primae)

CalRis25 11:38 iul 26, 2004 (UTC): Hello Faustus, this subject (pro/contra Roman dates etc.) has been discussed to some degree in the "disputatio"-page of Auxilium pro Editione (anglice). Have a look at it. Roman numbers and dates given Roman-style are very unwieldy, e.g.

• MDCXLVIII equals 1648 (and this is not even the worst!)
• a. d. XVII Kal. Oct. = September 15

Big numbers cannot even be represented in la.Wikipedia because the ancient Romans used a reversed C (cp. en:Roman numeral) which isn't available here. There were other numerals, too, which can't be represented here. One could of course use Roman numerals for small numbers and Arabic numerals for large ones, but that seems somewhat inconsistent to me.
You may be right that every language does include, to a certain degree, of its culture, but if we really tried to reflect Roman culture, things would look very different, e.g.

"GALLIA EST OMNIS DIVISA IN PARTES TRES, QUARUM UNAM INCOLUNT BELGAE, ALIAM AQUITANI, TERTIAM QUI IPSORUM LINGUA CELTAE, NOSTRA GALLI APPELLANTUR. HI OMNES LINGUA, INSTITUTIS, LEGIBUS INTER SE DIFFERUNT." (only capitals, as far as I know the Romans didn't have small letters. Just imagine how a whole article like this would look like!).

What about dates (something that is being discussed right now)? The "anno domini" wasn't invented before the sixth century. Before that there wasn't really a consistent system (a.u.c. wasn't really all that widely used by the population).
To me the Latin "culture" is represented by the language itself and above all the content, not by some frills. I do admit that in some cases they might look good or even be appropriate, but we should never forget that this is a Neo-Latin encyclopedia, created by men/women of the 21st century. Also, Latin is difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't make matters worse.
You're not the first one to object (and certainly not the last). I guess that this a fundamental difference of opinion. It seems that the pro-Arabic faction is winning right now. I hope that that won't be the source of major unrest and FLAME-wars. A decision has to be made, either in favour a purely Roman Wikipedia (a very, very, very difficult thing, and in my humble opinion also something that takes away far too much freedom from the user) or in favour of something less Roman, but freer and more universally Latin. Otherwise chaos is the result. Wikipedia is somewhat anarchic, but there should be a minimum of common style. Bye, CalRis.

Verba tua intellecta sunt. Super iste res super C reversa, nunc etiam in Unicodice habent totae symbolae numerorum romanorum. Sed vere, numeri largi erint. Vale--Faustus 16:59 iul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Genus verbi "nominis"

Salve Fauste, scripsisti in pagina usoris tuo "Nomen meus Faustus est". Sed verbum nominis genere neutro est (ergo "nomen meum"). Ac latina lingua dicitur "nomen meum Fausti (Genitivus !) est" (vel "nomen mihi Fausti est"). Vale--84.160.246.146 13:59 mai 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gratias ago! Paginam meam scripsi nesciens regula linguae Latinae. Nunc redisco linguam, ergo faciam pauciora erratorum..--Faustus 14:38 mai 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Think like the German Emperor Sigismund : "Ego sum rex Romanorum et supra grammaticam" - and no grammar error will be a problem !"--84.160.232.67 13:57 iun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Immo, "nomen mihi" multo melius est quam "nomen meum" sed nomen non DEBET esse casu genetivo: vel nominativo, vel genitivo vel etiam (nisi fallor) nonnumquam dativo! --Iustinus 17:21 iun 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Nomen mihi", melius quam "nomen meum"? Credebam Romanos praeferre "meus" in loco genitivi "mihi". Ignoro autem quare debeo (etiam, quare possum) nominem "Faustus" mittere in casu genitivo. Quare enim id possum in dativo scribere?--Faustus 23:27 iun 24, 2005 (UTC)

"mihi" est casu dativo. Usus, nisi fallor, est ita: "nomen mihi/tibi/ei" quando de hominibus disputatur. Quod attinet ad res, saepius genitivum(?). E.g. "Nomen viri illi est Cicero", sed "Nomen urbis illius est Roma." Ergo "Nomen mihi Faustus est." --Iustinus 00:00 iun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Quare mihi (quid est dativo possessionis, NON genitivo!), ac non meum? Mos simpliciter. Potes "uxor est mihi," "uxor est mea," vel "uxorem habeo" dicere. Si praeferris, potes putare implicatum verbum abesse: "Nomen [datum] mihi est ...."

Autem, genitivus pronominum personalium possessionem NON indicat, utilis praecipue constructionibus partitivis aut objectivis. Ergo, unus adiectivis "meus" et al. utitur ut possessionem indicet.

Doctus eram ut usus sim nominativo, non genitivo, cum nominibus. "Nomen mihi est Stephanus," non "Stephani." Forsan unus potest dicere genitivum esse partitivum.