Salve, Piscis!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!

--UV 21:34, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De emendationibusRecensere

Salvere te iubeo, Jchthys, et gratias ago pro scripta tua. Vidi id quod scripsisti in pagina Tergi Violinae. Tibi oportet fortasse legere paginam Vicipaedia:De orthographia#Modus Vicipaedianus: cum Latine scribimus, nec j nec signis diacriticis utimur. Oportet etiam in mente tenere nos omnes sub GNU Free Documentation License scribere. Hic non possumus dicere "noli recensere"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:27, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sententia significat "Noli inutiliter recensere". Mihi orthografiam mutare malevolens est. --Jchthys 22:46, 6 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Omnes humani sumus: hic humaniter scribimus in paginis disputationum, Jchthys, et tibi commendo ut ita scribas et tu -- sine imputatione "malevolentiae" et "stultitiae". Oportet modum Vicipaedianum orthographicum bene intellegere: postea, si vis mutare, potes id proponere in pagina illa disputationis. Sed notandum est multos Vicipaedianos, per quattuor annos, tales regulas accepisse et encyclopaediam semper maiorem creavisse. Spero et te, cum collegis Vicipaedianis tuis, per multos annos contributurum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:20, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your message. Yes, we differ from English Wikipedia in this: they allow the English/American spelling variants, we try to maintain consistency. It's also true that some of us don't personally agree with the spelling rules chosen: someone else writing on my page has just commented on this, and in fact I myself would prefer that we used u instead of v: the current rule seemed slightly illogical when I first encountered it, but I had to admit that it has one advantage which is truly important for an encyclopedia: it is a spelling system that is very commonly used, perhaps more commonly than any other. Encyclopedias (especially in small minority languages!) have to be easily approachable to as many as possible of their potential readers and editors, and very few people would be put off by our current spelling system or find it difficult to write in it.
There is one other point. We aim gradually to have more gadgets by which readers can choose their preferences. To make this possible, I believe it will usually be best if editors, at the cost of some compromising with their own preferences, have kept to a consistent "house style". But this is a complex issue, I admit.
Anyway, as I said above, you can of course propose a change at Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia. You'll see that there has been a lot of discussion already ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I think that the "house rules" were just made up by someone on the spot: they don't look like much time was put into them. It makes it no more difficult to read, besides, to have j and diacritics—those who don't use them can ignore them, or gadgets can be made to simplify the spelling. But using only u—and to a lesser extent, using only i—only makes it more difficult for certain others to read. As I mentioned on the De orthographiâ talk page, the majority of non-English textbooks use j (as well as ligatures). Just as in the English Wikipedia, consistency really isn't that big a deal. In my opinion, that's what the consensus by the end of the talk page at De Orthographiâ said, even if the "policy" itself was never changed. I propose that spelling variants that add information should not be changed by other users, as they can easily be changed by gadgets. In any case, I won't be petty and stubborn and change my spelling back, for that is exactly what's being done to me.—Jchthys 18:50, 7 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record: "the majority of non-English textbooks use j (as well as ligatures)," being a statement of fact, is either true or false. I'll have to assume it's true for Europe, as I can't speak to what textbooks aimed at European markets may do, but my impression is that none of the textbooks aimed at the U.S. market do, nor do the modern editions of Latin classics published in the Loeb series at Harvard, nor did the standard old American schooltext of Horace's odes & epodes as edited by Shorey & Laing (published in America at various times between 1898 & 1936), nor did the standard old American schooltext of the Aeneid in the Lake Classical Series (published in America by Scott, Foresman from 1900 on), nor does Cassell's Latin Dictionary, edited by the former head of the classical department at Eton and published in Britain from the late 1950s to the present. In fact, the editor of the last-named resource tells us in his preface: "My aim has been to conform to the fashions of the present day, both in English idiom and in Latin spelling." Those fashions, in Britain, as that lexicon shows, exclude the letter J and exclude ligatures. ¶ Also for the record: my copy of Ainsworth's Dictionary, published in Britain in the late eighteenth century, does distinguish between I & J, but it alphabetizes those letters indiscriminately; it uses diacritics only in showing the forms of lemmata, and does not use them in its illustrative quotations (except for an occasional caret over the vowel a, to mark the ablative singular). IacobusAmor 19:17, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the Roman Catholic Church and the pope use I not J and don't use ligatures: Iesus non Jesus: Latin Catechism, at
--Rafaelgarcia 20:21, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depending on the text you're looking at. Apparently, from the talk page for De Orthographiâ, some texts do.--Jchthys 01:22, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
And if it's true that Europe usually uses j, can't we at least allow it?
Incidentally, I've always thought that printing i/j and u/v but intermingling then alphabetically was the way to go, though I've never heard of its being implemented.--Jchthys 22:07, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Why are you so attached to this J?; its pronounced no different than an I. I can't imagine anyone being so stuck up about the shape of a letter, that he would prefer to introduce an inconsistency at this late date into an encyclopedia of 25,000 pages and counting. --Rafaelgarcia 22:39, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's as different from an i as a Classical v is from a u. Take jam, for instance. Is it "EE-ahm"?
Using a j only aids European users and English-speaking folks like me. If you don't like the j, turn on the appropriate gadget in your user preferences. That would make everyone happy, right?
How could one get consensus to change the imperium? Seems to me they reached a consensus to allow variation that could be controlled by gadgets, only no one has dared to touch it.
In any case, I'm not the one stuck up about the shape of the letter—Andrew Dalby was the one who changed it, not me.—Jchthys 01:27, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Gadgets don't work unless you have an account. Many users of Vicipaedia don't have accounts. They would see the ugly inconsistency between pages. Ligatures have no meaning. They are simply eye candy. If someone wants eyecandy they can get an account and use the gadget.--Rafaelgarcia 02:23, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there one instance in which i before a vowel is not a consonantal i? No. Is there an instance where u before a vowel isn't a consonantal u; plenty. There is plenty of evidence even in classical latin for an exception: qu always means kw and never ku; on the other hand cu always means Ku and never kw. This has been discussed by philologists for ages and there is a consensus outside vicipaedia on this worldwide. Why do you think the vatican adopted this way of doing things? Why all the educators did?
With v there is another reason: just as there are two spoken versions of english currently in use, there are only two latin pronunciations currently in use: classical and the vatican. In the vatican version the v's are pronounced differently. In both versions, the I and J are pronounced identically, that is the rationale behind the use of the v here and everywhere else. instance.
Classical and the vatican are the only two latin pronunciations currently in use? So, I use a non-existing pronunciation and the article en:Latin regional pronunciation is based on fiction? :-)
That article is evidently based on mores from over 100 years ago, 1700-1800's, when latin was more widely taught, used as a technical language in law and science, and people pronounced it according to their local linguistic custom. The statements there certaintly don't pertain to the later half of the 20th century. The only two populations that bother with latin to communicate anymore are academics studying classics and the roman catholic church. The RMC stuck with pronouncing it as in italian. Everyone else uses the reconstructed classical pronunciation.--Rafaelgarcia 11:17, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back to the topic: just as I don't like such generalisations about regional pronunciations, I don't like generalisations such as "Europe uses j" about the orthography. I am not a Latin expert and the only two Latin books I have seen here in Czechia are my textbook of Roman law and my textbook of Latin. Both use i only; the latter also marks vowel length, but it is hardly meant as a proposal to change the orthography of the rest of the Latin world, it is just an offer for those Czechs who want to utilise their phonetic capabilities (because Czech has a distinctive vowel length).
And that i/j/u/v looks inconsistent? Yeah, it does, which tends to be a feature of all compromises. --Gabriel Svoboda 10:34, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all of that. The idea that "Europe uses j" seems to me wildly wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you pronounced j in anyway like english you're dong it wrong. In english j is not pronounced like y. In latin it is always pronounced as a y before a vowel. Simple rule.--Rafaelgarcia 02:03, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, Rafael, I don't think we can really say that people are "doing it wrong". People today are using Latin as a Special Language (you forgot, above, that the botanists and zoologists use it too). I am sure that some -- and those scientists especially -- pronounce it in ways that we might think outlandish, because to them it is a Language for Special Purposes (technical term) and for most users it is not a spoken but a written language.
And that's the thing. We, too, are using it here as a written language. We don't know how Vicipaedia editors and readers pronounce it, and, actually, it doesn't matter, any more than it matters how the readers of en:wiki pronounce their English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case, (1) use of the j is widespread, (2) it can be turned off with a gadget. I'm sure the gadget could be turned on by default for users who are not logged in.
The reason that won't work is that some J's are there because it is part of a foreign word, such as Johnson and Joule, the imaginary number, IPA symbol etc. The gadget would have to lookout for every foreign word known and unknown that has a J and NOT change those.--Rafaelgarcia 02:58, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're sure that i before a vowel is never consonantal—i.e. really a j :-)−I'm sure someone could write a gadget the other way around. That would solve the problem once and for all.—Jchthys 02:42, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
iit. audiebat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concerning diacritics: They're really helpful, especially the for ablative singular first declension ending. Could they be turned off by default, but there could be a gadget to show them? I'd write these gadgets myself if I had the knowhow.—Jchthys 02:42, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Then rather than muck up the encyclopedia with useless js I'd suggest a gadget be written that displays j's instead of i's in consonantal positions. But please obey our rules and don't create work for people who would rather work on an encyclopedia instead of correct your spellings. Using a diacritic to mark a long a in an ablative where context isn't clear is ok, but 99.9% is it clear. We write prose not poetry here.--Rafaelgarcia 02:51, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About vocalic i before another vowel—there are more examples than with u! Take Vicipaedia itself, for instance. And iambus (Cicero) and iaspis (Virgil) are examples of vocalic i at the beginning of a word, while there are none for vocalic u!
In any case, I don't know if it's worth contributing to this "liberam encyclopaediam". —Jchthys 13:42, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I might contribute every once in a while. Since everyone who wrote on my disputatio seemed to think I should stick with the "ugly inconsistency" of the present system, I'll follow that and not "muck up" the encyclopedia.
(Sed in disputatione meâ, litterâ j utabor.) —Jchthys 22:02, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Please do stay around, as your Latinity has something to teach us, and subjects that seem to interest you have so far been ignored! IacobusAmor 22:33, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please do stay. With regards to the examples you cite. It is not the case that they are solely i-vowel and not i-consonant. In roman speech, as least according to Wheelock the i before the vowels was pronounced more like "iy" than like "i" or "y" alone; so that when pronounced carefully "Iulius" was "iyulius" and "cuius" was "cui-yus" but when pronounced quickly in speech approximated "yulius" and "cu-yus". Thus, i-consonant is really just a way of saying that i before a vowel is pronounced in this special way, mixing in with the next vowel. The "y force" diminishes in front of a consonant, as in "vicipaedia" or "dies" but it is still there if pronounced carefully. It is not a "pure y" as in english. --Rafaelgarcia 22:45, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vocalic i before e. What a brilliant word is the Latin for winter which appears variously as 'hiems, iems, hiemps, iemps, and EVEN ihems! 23:02, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I thought that if I got an encouraging remark I'd stay. —Jchthys 23:35, 8 Januarii 2009 (UTC)
Remark: about j being pronounced carefully like ij—how does that explain the scansion in metrical works? --Jchthys 03:02, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing: The U.S. Manual of Style says that when typesetting Latin,
"Formerly u and v were written with v, and i and j with i. Modern texts customarily distinguish both pairs. Thus: uva, visu, janua, Jove."
--Jchthys 03:59, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about poetry or latin scansion, so can't comment on that, but I have observed in general that in poetry things aren't always pronounced as in regular speech. The Manual is evidently behind the times in a big way, unless by modern they mean medieval. Almost all modern books (20th and 21st century) do not use the j. From what I have read, in latin the /y/ sound associated with i isn't considered a distinctly separate sound, it is an aspect of pronouncing the i infront of another vowels, which is dominant when the i separates two vowels and at the beginning of words (except before e as you observed). --Rafaelgarcia 10:22, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The book was published in the 1980's, and it is talking about Classical Latin, giving the Classical pronunciation and a quotation from Caesar (Galles est omnia...).--Jchthys 18:27, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I can suggest is look at amazon for new books in latin published this past century (Winne ille Pu, Orberg's Lingua Latina, etc., etc.,); look the stuff at Ephemeris and Melissa, look at the Vatican's Documenta Latina, look at Avellanus' books, etc.....You seem to have found the one book written in the twentieth century advocating the j. On the other hand, there is a growing movement in some quarters Schola Latina Universalis to return to using j and also add apex accent to indicate vowel length (which is yet another method different from the one you used). The rector of that school Avitus tried to convince us to change our system here and didn't succeed. Notably Avellanus in his time was as indignant in advocating that the j be exluded and had his own accenting scheme different from both yours and the one advocated by Avitus...Oh well!! We just can't make anyone happy!. PS "Galles" isn't right. It should be Gallia.--Rafaelgarcia 18:58, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, lapsus memoriae.
I'm borrowing Winnie Ille Pu from my Latin teacher, and it uses j (except, strangely, in the word jam).
The accenting system I use is one I find in traditional English books quoting Latin. It's described in the article New Latin on the English Wikipedia (which, just so you know, I did not contribute to).--Jchthys 21:07, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure the hardcover version I have doesn't use j and neither does the free internet version: --Rafaelgarcia 22:01, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[removing some of this indent] I'm looking at the hardcover published by Dutton (New York, 1960).--Jchthys 22:15, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're both right. He sometimes uses j and sometimes doesn't: one page has cuius another page has majores; one page Ior another page Joris.--Rafaelgarcia 23:56, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's worse than using only i. That don't really count as a book being in favour of j.--Jchthys 01:37, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true. Rather the free vacillation between i and j argues for a noncommittal i meaning both. In fact in Jchthys isn't the J standing in for a vowel i?--Rafaelgarcia 02:14, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is. Actually, even in English, j and i (as well as v and u) in olden times weren't distinguished in writing--the "consonantal forms" were used for both vowels and consonants at the beginning of a word, whereas the "vocalic forms" were used for both medially and finally. Johnson's dictionary, in fact, put jcon between jack and jouial. And the King of England was His Maiesty IAMES Rx.--Jchthys 15:46, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize it might be a bit boring to continue this thread but you inspired me to try to find out more about the classical consonant i pronunciation and I ran across this book which seems to give a nice dicussion of the i and u consonant sounds: Latin Grammar By Harry Edwin Burton--Rafaelgarcia 04:51, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming back here years after the fact to thank you all for putting up with my passionate teenage self :) Bona fortuna semper vobiscum!Jchthys (disputatio) 14:59, 13 Iunii 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typography: ligaturesRecensere

The use of ligatures for ae and oe seems nowadays to be a special case of "display type," designed to look superelegant, to show off, even to call attention to itself. (Hundreds of years ago, such fonts were quite common, perhaps ordinary & normal.) That's why Vicipaedia's own logo contains a ligature: it's for display, not reading. Logical consistency suggests that those who demand ligatures for ae and oe also demand ligatures for ct & st and those for fi, fl, ffi, and ffl (you'll find metal for them in any well-stocked letterpress typesetter's case). IacobusAmor 03:16, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the bye, do you know of the LaTeX typesetting system? I've been using it for a couple of months and have gotten good results. Now I'm working on a translation of my own of Cicero's Pro Archia, which I'm typesetting using it. There are methods of typesetting Latin and English parallel text, but I haven't experimented with that yet. I just mention this because the program automatically typesets fi and fl as ligatures. --Jchthys 23:38, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes we physicists use it for just everything, because it allows formulas. We need our own LaTex page.--Rafaelgarcia 23:59, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

renaming/moving pagesRecensere

Hello Jchthys, please see Vicipaedia:Movere (I just fixed a problem concerning Esperanto/Lingua Esperantica). Greetings, --UV 20:41, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratias ago pro labore tuo. Hanc rem memorabor.--Jchthys 15:55, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]