Noaius Paticus

Salve, Noai Patice!

Gratus 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:

• Ops nexusque usoribus novis ( ca,  de,  en,  es,   ia,  it,  ru,  ro,  no,  tl,  eo)
• De orthographia ( ca,  en,  es,  tl)
• Enchiridion interpretis (Anglice scriptum)
• Taberna
• Lexica Neolatina
• Lexica Latina interretialia
• Fontes nominum Latinorum ( ca)
• Fontes nominum geographicorum
• Index formularum

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" fieri velle! --Grufo (disputatio) 23:19, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

De motione sine fonte paginarum

Salve, Noai. Quaeso, noli paginas movere cum nullum fontem habeas (#1, #2). --Grufo (disputatio) 23:19, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Ego sum curiosus ubi tu venis ab. Quod Latina est non nativa lingua post circa DCC Commona Era, quid estne tuus nativa lingua? Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:23, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Quoque PLACE narre me illum tu use Classicalem Latinam pronunciationi, et non inferior et incorrecti Ecclesiasticalem Latinam, qui est applium disgustini Italiani pronunciationi pro Latina. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:30, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Ignosce mihi, sed linguam tuam vix intellego. Italicus sum, sed cur quaeras? Quid est “PLACE”? Et quid significat “disgustini”? Et “applium”? --Grufo (disputatio) 23:35, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Id est magis Anglica versio Latinii. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:36, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Non intellego. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:38, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Realem quaestionem est cur taberna est translatii pro "village pump" in Anglica? Id debet esse "vicus sentinus". Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:39, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Quid significat “sentinus”? --Grufo (disputatio) 23:40, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Ego intellego tu etiam. Peculiaris. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:40, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

"Vicus" -> "village" in Anglica. "Sentinus" -> "pump" in Anglica. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:41, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Antlia possibile? Sed est quoque translatio "treadmill" in Anglica XD. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:43, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Ad via, tu Anglice loqueris, recte? Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:46, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Ignosce mihi, fortasse alius Vicipaedianus te intelleget, sed non ego. Lingua Latina vocabulis non caret. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:47, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Do you speak English, Español, Français, Português, Italiano, Català, Română? Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 23:50, 10 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Sicut dixi, Italicus sum, ergo Italice loqui scio. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:00, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Estne iuste Latina et Italica tu loque? Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 00:07, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Quid significat “iuste”? Num significat “tantummodo” fortasse in lingua tua? De nostra Taberna: Cur appellatur Le Bistro apud Vicipaediam Francogallicam? Et cur Bar apud Vicipaediam Italicam? Et cur Café Hispanice? --Grufo (disputatio) 00:10, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Nesciro. Loquerisne aut intellegis Anglica? Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 00:14, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Quid est “Nesciro”? I can speak English too. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:16, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

"Nesciro" est "I don't know" or "Non lo so." Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 00:17, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

That would be nescio. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:17, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Ver (yes), NESCIO. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 13:28, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Denuo. Iterum, quaeso, noli sine fontibus paginas movere. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:36, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

LATINISATIO. Ego uso Latinisatae nominae pro omnia locae nominae, et Latina est una linguii illa usa vernacularis translatiis pro nomines. Id necesse est. Id possibili non cum conventiones, sed id est quid erit fert Latina in ad modernae et futurae tempas. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 16:51, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Quidas hicas verbas erit magis commonum in Romantiae linguae, dum alias erit magis commonum in Anglicam. Latina debet esse accessibilis ad AMBO Romantiae loquentiae ET Anglicae loquentiae. Hic est facire id sic. Nova Latina, non, tempum est pro FUTURA Latina. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 16:56, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Me quid dicas non intellegente, interloqui non possumus. At non ego, sed regula Vicipaediana statuit titulos paginarum fontes requirere. Quaeso, adde fontes quandocumque: 1. paginam moveas 2. tuas interpretationes vocabulorum inseras. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:43, 11 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Obstructio

Salve Noai. Iam bis a te petivi ut mutationes nominum Latinorum semper fontibus probes, attamen, etiam nonnullos fontes contradicens vel etiam titulum fontis emendans (!), has ulteriores paginas movisti:

• Lingua Chakassica → Lingua Chacassica
• Chakassia → Chacassia
• Guzarata → Gusarata
• Lingua Gujaratensis → Lingua Gusaratensis
• Amedebatum → Amadabatum

Ne ulterius damnum Vicipaedia Latina patiatur, mihi opus est te obstruere a recensendo (tempus trium dierum). Si a hoc actu diessentis, tuam rationem hic infra scribere potes. --Grufo (disputatio) 05:22, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Non, necesse est ut haec mutem, et dum contraintuitive videatur, pro Futura Latina evenire necesse est. Vetes fontes sunt VETUS, et sunt non exhibito hic Futura Latina, sic sunt ab vetior tempas, et sunt habunt evolvunt ab illum. Pute idio similis novissimo versio Latini. Nos habamus "Prisca Latina", (I.N), tunc "Classicala Latina", (II.N), tunc "Vulgarica Latina", (III.N), tunc "Sera Latina", (IV.N), "Mediaevala Latina", (V.N), tunc "Renascentia Latina", (VI.N), tunc "Nova Latina", (VII.N), et finallem nos haberimus "Futura Latina" (VIII.N). Noster fontes sunt ab septas eras ante Futura Latina, et sic sunt non qualificati. Hic Futura Latina est esse exculta me, et illum est cur tu habes non audis idi. Grufo, nolite ite in nefam latu historii, et potius ite cum currentem. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 05:48, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Sic, nolite obstructe me, aut tu ERIS demerga in currentem. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 05:51, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Et ego NOLI volo tu demergis. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 05:52, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Your usage of the Latin language is barely understandable, so I think we should better speak English (and I apologize if I am not a native English speaker). The rule is pretty simple: if a Latin name has a source (the thing written inside the <ref>...</ref> tags), you cannot move the page unless you provide for your new word another source within <ref>...</ref> tags. Is this rule clear? Moreover, what you must absolutely never do is:

• Change the title of a printed book
• Change a name that a source refers to, instead of writing the new name near it
• Impose orthography rules that go against what has already been established in Vicipaedia:De orthographia (however you can discuss our rules at Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia)

Are these last points clear? What makes me truly skeptical is the fact that recently you were blocked on English Wikipedia for the exact same reasons. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:24, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

You realize I cannot talk about it, and also "de orthographia" does not even include the letter W either which should not EVER be used in the Latin alphabet, as V does that purpose, and that K, and Z, and even Y in some places, are foreign borrowings from Greek, and are not actual LATIN letters. I literally fixed these names to go with my rules and those "de orthographia" rules, (though I beg to differ on the ligature rule, as I prefer the ligatures myself), and I modified some names slightly. Also, there are NO universally accepted Latin names for cities, and what I am doing is making them similar to the English names, and in the lucky case of Aleppum (Aleppo), previously Halabia, the source already had my name in it. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 06:59, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

• What I meant by not talking about it was that I am blocked from the discussion on the "De orthographia" pagina. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 07:00, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  You have been blocked for only three days, once your block expires you will be allowed to discuss – however when you were not blocked you did not even try to discuss with others. What our orthography rules must or must not state is not up to you alone to decide. Wikipedia is a collective project based on consensus. For instance, I would be in favour of using the letter j, because the sound existed and reading poetry becomes much simpler if you can visually distinguish Julius from Iulus (the second is a Greek name, so no semivowel), but I would never force my own views on others. Vicipaedia tries to enforce Classical Latin as much as possible. If you are interested in other languages based on Latin you may have a look at Pan-Romance language § Neolatino (Ørberg), or similar artificial languages – however, they are not allowed on Vicipaedia. That said, if you provide reliable sources, you are welcomed to enrich pages with alternative spellings (I often do that myself). --Grufo (disputatio) 07:12, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  Also it was ALWAYS Gaius Iulius Caesar, and even the Classical Latin pronunciations appear as if they were based on English pronunciations which are TOTALLY incorrect. And, trust me, I KNOW that Wikipedia is a stickler for adding sources, but if you have no other sources, and you are not giving false, or potentially false, information, you should be allowed to "create" the source. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 08:05, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  Also the perfect Latin would look like the following:

  The Differences:

  Aj (Eye) -> Æ,æ

  Aʊ (Ow, but with a significantly more Ah sound at the beginning): Au,au or Av,av (only with a successive vowel)

  K (K) -> C,c or Ch,ch

  Kɛ (Keh?) -> Ce,ce or Che,che

  Tʃ (Tch, as in chew) -> C̄,c̄

  Ki (Key) -> Ci,ci or Chi,chi

  Ð (Dh, as in the): D̄,d̄

  Ɛa (Eh and ah fused together) -> Ea,ea

  Ɛj (Ay) -> Ei,ei

  Ɛo (Eh and oh, the latter being more like aw, fused together): Eo,eo

  Ɛʊ (Eh and ooh fused together) -> Eu,eu or Ev,ev (only with a successive vowel)

  F (F) -> Ph,ph *F has been replaced by Ph

  G (G) -> G,g or Gh,gh

  Gɛ (Geh?) -> Ge,ge or Ghe,ghe

  Gi (Gee, but with a g sound) -> Gi,gi or Ghi,ghi

  N (Silent g with just the n sound) -> Gn,gn

  χ (Hard h, like in Chanukah) -> H̄,h̄

  Ia or Ja (Ee and Ah fused together, in all places except the beginning of the word, but Ya when at the beginning) -> Ia,ia

  Iɛ or Jɛ (Ee and Eh fused together, in all places except the beginning of the word, but Ye when at the beginning) -> Ie,ie

  Ii or Ji (Ee twice pronounced, in all places except the beginning of the word, but Yee when at the beginning) -> Ii,ii

  Io or Jo (Ee and oh, the latter being more like aw, fused together, in all places except the beginning of the word, but Yo when at the beginning) -> Io,io

  Iu or Ju (Ee and ooh fused together, in all places except the beginning of the word, but You when at the beginning) -> Iu,iu

  Dʒ (Dj, as in juice) -> Ḡ,ḡ

  • K has been replaced by C, and no longer exists

  Lj (Ly, as in lieu) -> L̄,l̄

  Ɲ (Ny, as in union) -> N̄,n̄

  Oj (Oy) -> Œ,œ

  Oʊ (Owe) -> Ou,ou or Ov,ov *Oa, Oe, normal Oi, and Oo have become Ova, Ove, Ovi, and Ovo, respectively

  Ps (Ps, as in lapse) -> Ψ,ψ

  Kw (Qu, as in quick) -> Q,q *Q does not need the u anymore, and it makes the qu sound without it

  S (S, as in case) -> S,s

  ʃ (Sh) -> S̄,s̄

  θ (Th, like in thing) -> T̄,t̄

  Uj (Ooh and ee fused together) -> Ʋ,ʋ

  W (W, as in win) -> V,v

  Ks (X, as in index) -> X,x

  • Y has been replaced by I, and no longer exists

  Z (Z, as in wise) -> Z,z

  Ʒ (Zh, as in vision) -> Z̄z̄

  Examples:

  Bruxēllæ (English: Brussels)

  Vīc̄ita (English: Wichita)

  Nicherulmūd̄um (English: Ngerulmud)

  Phrancophōrtum (English: Frankfort)

  Suh̄ūmium (English: Sukhumi) *the I here can be an I OR a Y

  Beiḡingum (English: Beijing)

  Marsīl̄a (English: Marseille)

  Bostōn̄a (English: Boston)

  Detrœ̄tum (English: Detroit)

  Ψescōvia (English: Pskov)

  Albucūqa (English: Albuquerque)

  Nas̄vīlla (English: Nashville)

  Plimūt̄a (English: Plymouth)

  Bʋumbūra (English: Bujumbura)

  Lozānna (English: Lausanne)

  Z̄ilina (English: Žilina) Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 08:14, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  Mea culpa, Z̄ilīna. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 08:18, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  «but if you have no other sources, and you are not giving false, or potentially false, information, you should be allowed to "create" the source»: Sure, but in a peer-reviewed journal, not in Wikipedia: here that is the way to permanent block. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:22, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. I will try to explain myself better, because what I wrote can be misinterpreted. We do make an exception if no sources exist: in that case we “create” our own sources (see the page Cinematographema that I recently created) – however with a caveat: as soon as a source for that name appears the old name without source will be erased. All the pages you edited already had sources for their names, therefore the rule that the name without source gets erased applied to your edits. The only exception among all your renamings is Massaua → Massava: You added your preferred spelling for a page whose old spelling had no source, therefore there is no reason to believe that your idea is inferior to the previous one. However the caveat applies to the Massava page too: as soon as someone finds a source (the <ref>...</ref> tags) any unsourced name will be erased. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:32, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

  In "Massava" and other names lacking support from extrawikipedian sources, the formula {{FD ref}} is useful. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

Orthographia

Amice, you seem to be trying to establish a wiki with its own orthography, and that's fine—but it's an independent project, separate from this one. The rules of Classical Latin orthography and its relation to pronunciation are well & precisely known (see W. Sidney Allen's Vox Latina). Certain medieval and later accommodations, such as the letter W, are tolerated when necessary, but reconstructing the language for future & idiosyncratic use is beyond the scope of this project. Several ancient practices, such as use of the "long I" and apices (see "Apex (diacritic)" in the English wiki), have much to recommend them, but they were often ignored in ancient epigraphy, and they're usually ignored in modern typography. This is a subject that more than a few minds have contemplated. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 15 Octobris 2024 (UTC)

But since I do have virtually as much knowledge about Latin as W. Sidney Allen, (as I know all about the orthography, and it doesn't matter how many degrees the scholar has, it won't change anything), you can't make the case that his system is more valid than mine, and even if you have more people supporting his method, it really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. MY system is to Latinize names, and sometimes words, as much as possible, but also to modernize them for the 21st century. The reason why I am making the case to follow my precedent over the others is that it will make Latin as modern as all of the native spoken languages of the world today. So, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with his method, as I personally believe I have a better one. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 00:26, 11 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

Denuo obstructio

Noaius, what part of “you need to bring references in your support” you did not understand? Moreover, turning this

'''Allahabad'''<ref>...</ref>

into this,

'''Allahabadum'''<ref>...</ref>

as you just did, is vandalism, because you are introducing the idea that the preexisting source (<ref>...</ref>) supports your new ideas.

This time you have been blocked for one week. Next time it will be one month. The last time it will be a permanent ban. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:43, 11 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

References don't apply here. I AM THE REFERENCE. I am not vandalizing, I am CORRECTING. The sources are inaccurate, and sometimes they don't even change the name from the original language. The sources would be outdated and the world is always changing. What you are doing is like blocking an article about a new event from being created because of it conflicting with previous historical information. That is absurd. They are not looking at it through the right lens, and you are also. If you are trying to verify a non-changing fact or facts, THEN you use references. If it is a fact that may be adjusted or replaced for the better, then you BECOME the reference, and OTHERS use YOU as the reference. Literally, references wouldn't be a thing without someone BECOMING a reference for others. Something or someone has become, is becoming, or will become a reference for others, otherwise there are no references. Come on, this is common sense, why don't YOU understand? So, obviously, if it is talking about the votes in an election, or the combatants in a war, etc., THEN YOU USE REFERENCES. But if it is converting, and it is NOT yet existent, a language and its orthography to fit the modern era, then YOU are becoming the source. And no, the source you become DOESN'T have to be found outside Wikipedia in circumstances like this. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 00:58, 11 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

You are a source, okay, and other Wikipedians are sources too. And they decided together long ago that this is better.

You will suggest "Darmanestia", I "Dermenestium" (because Romanian "ă" is "e"), the third "Darmanesti, Darmanestorum", the fourth "urbs Darmanis" (because it is named after Darman) or "Darmanium", and how shall we choose? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:40, 11 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

Dmitry Mole, ha! That is a funny username. Now, in Romanian ă sounds like the famous schwa sound in the International Phonetic Alphabet, "uh", and that is ALWAYS a version of "a". So, you are gravely mistaken there. Anyways, we MUST PUT SOMETHING for the pages that we create in Latin, otherwise we are doing work for nothing. Also, we can put case varieties of the names in Latin, BUT, they should be as close to the native language as possible. This is why I believe we should use "Istanbulium" rather than "Constantinopolis", since we need to have it as modern as possible. And, yes, we could have "Istanbulia" or "Istanbulius", and we could even combine words into one if the native language also did so. Futura Latina is all about making Latin fit for the modern era, but simultaneously doing it in a Latinized fashion. We could even implement the spelling system that I proposed above, like in Beiḡingum, rather than the outdated Pechinum. THIS is what we need, and these are designed to be NEOLOGISMS. Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 19:14, 27 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

And how do we know that in a hundred years, in the languages ​​that will exist at that time, it will be called "Istanbul"? The name "Istanbul" can quickly become obsolete, but "Constantinopolis" can no longer. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:50, 27 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

I believe our policy concerning city names is not based on ancient or modern, but on widespread usage in Latin. If a conspicuous corpus of Latin sources suddenly emerged, in which the city of Constantinopolis were called with a different name, we could no longer ignore that name. But how the city is called in languages other than Latin is quite irrelevant to us (unless, of course, we lack a Latin name). By the way, Constantinopolis is also the most modern name, because who writes in Latin today uses that name today. As for Dărmănești, if we wanted to reverse-engineer it, it would probably be Darmaniscum or Dormaniscum, because -esti maps -iscus, -a, -um in place names, and the guy was called Darmanus or Dormanus if I am not wrong. However we don't reverse-engineer city names, we use sources instead. --Grufo (disputatio) 05:33, 28 Novembris 2024 (UTC)

There is likely not going to be any more name changes for Istanbul in the foreseeable future, but "Constantinopolis" is from the time of the last century of the Roman Empire and the lifetime of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, but since 1922, when Türkiye was created, it has been called SOLELY by Istanbul. As for this debate about Dărmănești, that is a valid counter-argument, and I am okay with using any of your proposed names for the Romanian city, since they are related to its Romanian endonym. Also we could use ï to denote when the I is an /i/ sound in the International Phonetic Alphabet, but a regular I when it is the /j/ sound. The J and Y letters themselves are not Roman, and the existence of "Y" in BOTH Latin and in all of the different varieties of Greek over time is in question, as it has no distinct sound from I. And the Latin sources are ONLY looking towards the past, and not towards the future, or EVEN THE PRESENT. THAT is the problem. Languages don't look towards the past. They BUILD ON or CORRECT their past versions. They focus on the PRESENT and how what they do now will affect the future. So, if there are no present-day natively-spoken equivalent versions of ancient languages, then the most recent version has to focus on the present. Old English, Ancient Greek, "Biblical Hebrew", [which I really see no differences of it and modern Hebrew], and MAYBE Sanskrit are stuck in the past, because they HAVE a modern-day natively-spoken equivalent version. Latin DOES NOT. Thus Latin MUST be modernized as they ARE their most modern self and it is almost calling for a language's EXTINCTION if they don't modernize. Latin IS NOT a dead language because it has the opportunity to modernize, but some of the sources and users of Wikipedia either do not know or try to sabotage this VITAL modernization. So, if the sources won't support this modernization, then they will be left in the dust for failure to support it. Or WE WILL BE THE NEW SOURCES.

LONGE VIVE FVTVRA LATINA!

SEMPER MODERNISE!

NVMQVAM RETRE!

LATINA ERIT ÆTERNVM TANTVM SI ID MVTAT CVM TEMPVM!

AVE FVTVRA LATINA! Noaius Paticus (disputatio) 19:30, 29 Novembris 2024 (UTC)