Feliz Navidad!Recensere

Natale hilare et annum faustum! --El Mexicano 11:25, 24 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
Mox abibo ad Novam Caesaream visitatum parentes meos Saturnaliae causa; redibo pridie anni novi. Felix tempus hoc in die volo omnibus.--Rafaelgarcia 13:02, 24 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

De spatio commentariorumRecensere

Don't you think that we should concentrate on making full-sized articles with a significant amount of real Latin text, rather than many articles with just dictionary definitions and tables? Just a thought. --Jchthys 00:24, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my "conlationes usoris" making full sized articles is what I mostly do!--Rafaelgarcia 01:09, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I quite agree with both of you; but we can't force people to work on particular projects. I myself have assayed a variety of subjects because that method seems like the best way of expanding my vocabulary, but I try to produce more than one-sentence hiccups. ¶ Sentiment has been expressed that the articles listed at have the highest priority; you're welcome to have a go at adding new ones and augmenting the ones we already have (except Smetana, who doesn't deserve to be on any such list!). ¶ Of course plenty of articles needn't be all that long to cover their subjects as completely as in any wiki. Two that I recently added do that: Zingiber (cadaver medicatum) is as long as the version in en:, and Rhizoma has one fact more and is accordingly one sentence longer! Tangaloa remains the longest and best-organized of the articles on that subject in the wikis. At this stage, lacunae naturally abound, but Vicipaedia does have its little triumphs. IacobusAmor 01:35, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I obviously wasn't addressing anyone in particular. It just seemed that most of the paginae I see are stipulae. I noticed, though, that the article Arcadius Avellanus is not only decent-sized, but also the article on the man in any language! (Sometime I'll have to do the English or Esperanto version.) --Jchthys 02:48, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I make quite a lot of both kinds. I tend to use Vicipaedia as a notepad, to gather information on people or things that I want to be able to find again. This often results in very brief articles, but with links and bibliographies that are better than you can find elsewhere in wikimedia. I think there is some value in this to others (else I wouldn't do it) and such articles do provide the basis for myself or someone else to expand later (as eventually I did with Eleutherius Benizelus, for example).
I think allowing people to follow their own interests does help the encyclopedia to grow. I also think that Latin is a naturally concise language, in which very brief articles can actually provide a lot of basic information. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a very concise language for certain things, since a lot of modern vocabulary has to be replaced with periphrasis if one wants to avoid neologisms.--Jchthys 01:40, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Tibi gratias agoRecensere

De "Nexus"verba: fundamentum usi mei verbi "ligamen" est verbum "link" in Facebook Latine "ligamen"redditum esse. Bene facis, quoniam mendum meum refecisti. --Discipulusquidocet

Salve Rafaelgarcia, gratias pro salutatione tua! Idem autem Usor sum 'Ulvapes', sed tegulam meam didici. 'Eebahgum' nomen apud Vikipedia Anglice, simpliciter igitur illi et tegulae memento, nouum conventum creans. 'Aggressus' pro 'agressus' correxi. Stet 'In ingressu', hic more M.T. Quintiliano (thesauro meo) me recte scripsisse agito. 'Campolifonte' nescio, verbum de oratione priore (quam rescripsi) inferens sine mutatione. Me de 'certaminem' excuso, hora matutinae (noctis etiam) Angliae quatuor scribens, accusativum me male flexisse. Tibi placeat orationem priorem legere, quam excoluisse spero.[1] Salus tibi, Eebahgum 12:47, 21 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC) - Mihi erat in animo 'tessera', nec 'tegula', scribere...Eebahgum 20:17, 21 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Gratias tibi Eebahgum, omnes ob tuas conlationes apud nos. Necesse autem non est te excusari ob has erratas. Omnes et ego quoque quotidie errant. Paginae latinitatem censui ne errata usores novos, qui linguam Latinam usque nunc bene non discunt, absterreant vel contristent. Tempus ad eam recensendam non habebam.Vale.--Rafaelgarcia 22:40, 21 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Ancient languages localizationRecensere


I see that the localization of latin has been interrumped, at Betawiki.

I suggest you to continue the work. The goal: complete the localization of Mediawiki messages and its extensions.


Salve Rafaelgarcia!Recensere

Gracias por tu bienvenida (ya voy a aprender latin, me lo debo siendo la lengua de mis ancestros, solo se italiano), saludos Shooke 04:32, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Ave RafaelRecensere

Ego sum scholasticus linguae latinae et volo discere plus huius pulchrae linguae. Qui possum discere plus? Gratias!--Nicanorpozomx 23:37 10 Februarii (UTC)

Salve, Rogas ubi potes Linguam Latinam discere? Commendo omnibus cursum Orberg --Rafaelgarcia 22:54, 10 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Effectus DopplerRecensere

Thanks for fixing effectus Doppler. Stupid mistake, but it shows again that even the English Wikipedia cannot be trusted blindly. - Golradir 00:28, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Thanks to you too. After finding the mistake on en:wiki I fixed it there too.--Rafaelgarcia 01:58, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind ...Recensere

I've reverted at Hamburgum (as explained on the disputatio page) because I think Usor:AurinKo was right in this case: the name Ole is not connected with Olavus. According to de:wiki, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

OK--Rafaelgarcia 12:17, 25 Februarii 2009 (UTC)


Rafael, as administrator maybe you will find interesting this website,, I see that many names in vicipaedia need to be changed, for example, Tamaulipae to Tamaulipas, France is called "Gallia" and not "Francia", there are no Civitates Foederata Americae, the nearest are Ameria and America (there is no entry for "Ameria" in vicipaedia). Best regards!, Herr Thor Hdz

Civitates Foederatae Americae is attested in many sources, Herr. I am not sure about the others. I have seen Gallia used for France in a number of maps, but that is a complete throwback to Caesar's Gaul. Modern usage often varies quite a bit. You should compare Hoffmann's lexicon, which clearly identifies modern France as Francia, and the other fontes nominum locorum.I would discuss any name changes on the appropriate page. I think Vicipaedians have tried to keep to attested sources.--Rafaelgarcia 13:56, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)
Thor, the forms of most of the names given as lemmata have been found attested in reputable sources (or in the case of Finnish & Austronesian names, formed so regularly from the originals that the system of transformation itself amounts to a kind of attestation); when you find attested variants not already in Vicipaedia, feel free to insert them, with appropriate footnotes. IacobusAmor 14:24, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Anything particular?Recensere

Could you tell me what's so bad about the Latin of Martialis Merlin? I notice a couple of slips -- I failed to insert the genitive "Imperii Francici" and I wrote "anno" instead of "die" -- otherwise, it looks OK to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 28 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Those were the only reasons, pretty much. I was hoping to get back to it to emporio really referring to emporium as opposed to imperium?--Rafaelgarcia 21:03, 28 Martii 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it really is! Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 28 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Help with translationRecensere

Hi! Could you please translate this phrase into Latin?

Nuestra graduación será el dia 13 de mayo a las 18:00 horas en el salón de actos del colegio. Te esperamos.

Thanks a lot for your help. --Jeneme 11:12, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Gradus suscipiemus, die tertio ante Idus Maias (die tertio decimo mensis Maii), prima hora vespertina (hora 18:00) in aula actus collegii. Te expectamus.
I've indicated one of the ancient methods of naming the date and hour as well as in parentheses the date and hour in modern form; you can indicate both. If you want the date even more briefly you can alternatively write "die 13 Maii"--Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. --Jeneme 15:09, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)


Disputatio huius rei mota est ad Disputatio:Praepositio (grammatica Latina)#DE PRAEPOSITIONIBVS--Rafaelgarcia 01:59, 25 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but ...Recensere

I moved Gualterius Matthow to Gualterius Matthau -- and then I saw you had just moved it to that spelling, so in fact I've reverted you. Very sorry. But why -ow? I can't see any reason on our page, or the English one, to prefer the spelling "Matthow". Sorry if I've missed something obvious. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that Matthow is how he spells his name. Since we don't translate names shouldn't we leave it as he spells it in his language/dialect?--Rafaelgarcia 13:06, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see it is actually spelled Matthau on the english page. Hmmm. Wierd!!--Rafaelgarcia 13:08, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
... and on the official website (linked from our article). Well, he was a weird guy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Matris DiesRecensere

Eo nunc Novam Caeseream usque ad Lunae diem, Matris Diem et mei nepotis baptismum celebrandi causa. Me paenitet si non possum usque tunc tibi respondere.--Rafaelgarcia 23:33, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)

lingua CRecensere

Thanks, Rafael, I was actually afraid of that. --Ioscius (disp) 12:15, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)

Lupercal est nomen specuiRecensere

Personnally I don't mind about the dative but Iacobus Amor has put a rule that a lemma must begin with a phrase of this type : A is B. With the genitive the meaning is : "Lupercal is the name of a...", with the dative the construction is different. "A specus in the Palatine has the name Lupercal" or "there is a specus who has the name Lupercal..." etc. So put it as you like. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilusé

The A-est-B notion was a suggestion, backed up by attestations, and others seem to have adopted it as a rule. But this is a different issue, for which a new suggestion may be in order: definitions should not ordinarily use the X-is-the-name-of-Y structure, and for at least two reasons: (1) definitions ordinarily define things themselves, not their names; (2) since words cited as words ("X is a word," "X is a name," "the word X," "the name X") are ordinarily in italics, referring to lemmata as names means they should be italicized, but such italization might look inconsistent & confusing. Consider how silly it would be to begin an article "Alfred Einstein was the name of a man who. . . ." Whenever—as with Iter Stellare and concepts like biological genera—you have a collective lemma, or one that refers to multiple things, the formula that dictionaries would use is "any of several" and its variants: "any of numerous," "either of two," "one of multiple," and so on. Hic ergo: "Lupercal est specus" vel (if this is the way the definition wants to go) "Lupercal est quaelibet nonnullorum specuum." IacobusAmor 12:41, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes we want to convey that a word is the name of something although the term might appear a misnomer or appear to refer to something else. This often happens with technical terms or modernisms, but can apply whenever something is a proper name. The usual way Latin sources convey the idea " X is the name of Y" is to say "X dicitur Y". However I don't see any issue with "X est nomen Y-dative" in these cases.
If there is any rule per se it is that the lemma should be placed as the first word in the same form as the name of the page; I think the rule "A est B" was once discussed in the context that some people write "A B est" out of mistaken grammatical assumptions about word order in latin. The order in latin is properly determined by the emphasis (the beginning and end of a phrase being emphatic) and in a defintion the emphasis is on the name and the definition, not on the being.--Rafaelgarcia 13:22, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Marcus is misled in trying to start the article this way. For example, the english article merely starts "The Lupercal is a cave..."--Rafaelgarcia 13:24, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)

I don't mindRecensere

I don't take any offense, I haven't had the chance to take a class and won't for a few years. I'm also horrible at translating into Latin, translating out is a lot easier...I focused most of my time on being able to translate out. Bandit V. 23:23 6 Iunii 2009 (CST)

Patres AlbiRecensere

Vale, carissime Raphael, quomodo te habeas?

Can you watch a little this page, if I have written something wrong in my not good Latin?

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo 10:49, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about the confusion with the names... my Latin teacher is generally good at teaching us the way things are usually done, not oversimplified versions. I'll keep naming to myself in the future and let experts like you take over, as you have a much better idea of what you're doing than I do! ~ Sparkstarthunderhawk 18:19, 14 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

So far our users have covered just about every name out there that has a latin equivalent. If you look up a english personality with a certain name and follow the Latina link, you will quickly find the latin equivalent.--Rafaelgarcia 11:31, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
What's Latin for 'Craig'? IacobusAmor 12:57, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of an equivalent. So I would just use Craig as an indeclinable. If I were Craig, I would latinize my name as Craigus.--Rafaelgarcia 13:44, 15 Iunii 2009 (UTC)


I was just working on a new definition of alkali, when you made your edit. Based on the English and German pages I now think that alkali is not so much the solution as the salt itself, which solved in water produces a basic OR alkaline solution. This is the definition I was going to write down: see if you like it and if we can use part of it:

Alkali,[1] alcali[2] (-lis, n.)[3] vel alcalium[4] (a nomine Arabico القلي al-qili, i.e. potassa, a verbo قلی qalā, i.e. 'coquere')[5] in chemia est sal basicus ionta metalli alkalini aut metalli alkalini terrestris continens, qui in aqua solutus solutionem basicam efficit.

Vale. --Fabullus 11:51, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was just going by what was on our page.Your first source supports the definition that it is the salt itself.--Rafaelgarcia 11:58, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
I will then implement my definition. --Fabullus 12:22, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
  1. Stephanus Blancardus, Lexicon Medicum (1748), lemma 'alkali'
  2. Stephanus Blancardus, Lexicon Medicum (1748), lemma 'alcali'
  3. Philippus Wilde, De alcalibus per urinam excretis (1855), in titulo et passim
  4. Antonius Henricus van der Boon Mesch, 'Responsio ad quaestionem physicam' in Annales Academiae Lugduno-Batavae 1823-1824 (1825), p.31 et passim
  5. Raja Tazi, Arabismen im Deutschen (1998), pp.115-116

Hope you don't objectRecensere

I obstructed Usor:Freedom for China not just for a week but ad infinitum. For unknown reasons this user is inserting, and then demanding deletion of, articles about Nguyen Van Hung in many Wikipedias. The activity is clearly a waste of other people's time, so it might as well be obstructed as far as possible. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find that they are taking the same action on other Wikipedias. See sulutil:Freedom for China! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
Vandalizing wikis is equivalent to vandalizing books. Libraries that I know have banished vandals (including a professor whose textbook I once studied from) for life. One librarian described such banishment as the library's equivalent to capital punishment, appropriate because vandalism is, from a library's viewpoint, a capital crime. As long as a route for appeal is available, perpetual banishment would seem to me to be the most fitting default response to all acts of vandalism. IacobusAmor 13:02, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
In general I agree. In this case, not knowing all the circumstances of his actions, I was giving the user the benefit of the doubt that he was himself acting to correct the promotion of an unnotable thing. Blocking IP addresses over long periods is unproductive since many people can share the same IP address (library computer, computer lab, internet cafe, etc..)--Rafaelgarcia 20:03, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
True! and in the system of liberty that we support, the knowledge that perpetual blocking is regularly meted out to vandals may lead the owners and/or users of an IP address to police themselves appropriately! Bear in mind that I stress that a process of appeal should be in place; I don't see where it's advertised. IacobusAmor 20:10, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
I went further than Rafael because I've studied this user's activities on several other wikipedias. If you disapprove of my action, Rafael, please say so.
In response to Iacobus, blocked users are still able to contribute on their own talk pages. That's how they appeal if they want to. Exactly how this becomes clear to them, I don't know because I've never been blocked! But, on busy wikis, such appeals do happen often. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

De nexibus intervicisRecensere

Excuse me, perhaps it's a silly question, but what do you exactly mean with "nexus intervicus"? I would add those links if I understood better. I'm mainly talking about page "Navis velifera". --Poecus 21:15, 23 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It means interwiki links, i.e. links to other wiki articles on Sail ships for instance. I you have them then they will appear at the left bottom side of the page. You can copy them from other wikis. They appear like this:[[en:Sail Ship]], etc. at the bottom of a wiki page.--Rafaelgarcia 23:06, 23 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see now...sorry, I sometimes make very stupid mistakes. I added the links. Thanks!
--Poecus 10:13, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
No problem. THanks for the nice page!--Rafaelgarcia 10:54, 24 Iunii 2009 (UTC)


Sorry. Let's get on with the race towards article 30000. Tergum violinae 15:43, 26 Iunii 2009 (UTC)


Ave, Raphaël!

Num scis quomodo dicitur syllaba quae elatiore voce dicitur (Hispanice: sílaba acentuada), et elatio ipsa (Hispanice: acento [prosódico])?

Ave Cato, fortasse Neandrem melius respondere potest, sed egomet, postquam L&S consultavi, credo accentus (4a)= acento; prosodia==accentus prosodiacus=syllabae accentus=acento de sílaba; syllaba prosodiaca=sílaba acentuada--Rafaelgarcia 14:02, 8 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Cell phonesRecensere

Num vidi potes notam quam scripsi de telephono cellulari?

Macte!--Rafaelgarcia 22:38, 11 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Grand Island, NebraskaRecensere

What the hell? Why did you delete my article on Grand Island, Nebraska. I could understand if you would prefer to call in "Grandis Insula, Nebrasca" or some such. But why delete? Please restore it. 01:42, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

This IP is associated with vandalism.--Rafaelgarcia 01:48, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Angelus or Angeli in Amaranth?Recensere

Excuse me Raphael, I was to say that there's only one angel in Amaranth's video, or, at least, in the famous video I saw. Have you seen another different video or has your correction been misguided by a grammatical error of mine? --Poecus 22:20, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

No just a misunderstanding on my part. I hope I fixed it ok. I don't know how to translate video either. Pellicula minima doesn't do it justice. I would think something like visificum carminis exceptaculum or simply visificum would do. Maybe this is something to bring up in the Taberna.--Rafaelgarcia 23:24, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
It's all right. Well I was already thinking about "video" in latin. What about visum breve? My dictionary gives visum as noun in the sense of "something you see", but also "visible event, appearence". Perhaps we should think about. I temporarely translated it with "pellicula minima" because I don't like to create new therms or interpretations on my own. But I agree with you, we have to talk about it.
--Poecus 23:30, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Visum means "a vision" in the sense of something which is seen or imagined. Like in the phrase "a vision of God appeared to Moses"; the adjective "visificus" specificially means "video", so it would follow the latin pattern for creating a noun meaning "an adjective thing" to take it as a neuter "visificum" = "a video thing". However, I have not read anyone using this term. Video as a straight borrowing would be fine excepts it irks that it looks like the word "I see--Rafaelgarcia 00:08, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Was it noster Neander who recommended video, -onis? IacobusAmor 00:45, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to borrow words that way, then it should be videum, -i (which would almost certainly produce the desired *video in Romance), not video, -nis (which might become *videone in some Romance languages). Gabriel Svoboda 06:11, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the meaning of "video" is so much particular that we have to borrow terms that way. After all, I think Rafael's idea is the best till now. But I wouldn't use exceptaculum, that seems to refer to an instrument, an item, "something collecting...". But only the neuter visificum would be better. --Poecus 11:38, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

Not arguing for it but just by way of an explanation: an exceptaculum in this context mean a "clip" or "excerpt", eg we have attested "exceptaculum visificum" = "video clip"--Rafaelgarcia 13:02, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Do we, where? I know Morgan has 'exceptaculum televisificum' for VCR (I suppose the sense is 'television-making receiver'); for 'video clip' he has "segmentum cinesiopticum" (apparently nowhere in use). Maybe you mean excerptum? "Visificus, -a, -um," where I've seen it, seems to be more in the sense of image/video/'visum'-making—what the technology that records it does, or what the actors do—e.g. in quadrum/album visificum 'screen' (='visum-making square/tablet'), taenia visifica 'videotape' (='visum-making ribbon'), etc. I don't know, I guess the -ific- just doesn't work there for me. It'd be like calling sleep a somnificum, or terror a terrificum. (Not that I'd recommend 'visum' for 'a video', but it seems that's the basis of this use of 'visificus'.) —Mucius Tever 04:19, 21 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Oops you're right. I got confused, I should have said excerptum visificum = video clip. Visificus is precisely, I think, the sense of video called for: visum = moving image/vision; thus, visificus= "moving image making" or "associated with the making of moving images". So Technologia Visifica = "moving image making technology" = "video technology". Excerptum visificum = "clip associated with movie making"; Visificum used as a noun would normally have excerptum understood, but otherwise would be understood as "a thing associated with making movies" --Rafaelgarcia 12:38, 21 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
I see. Ok I understand what you mean. I've been a lot looking for another possible translation but I've found nothing more appropriate.--Poecus 13:22, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

If the meaning of video isn't so much particular, why have other languages borrowed the term video? Given that Vicipaedia is supposed to create articles on whatever topic, we sorely need some hard-core technical vocabulary quite like other languages do. (For a start, one might try to translate en:Video.) A few months ago, I suggested video, -onis. Though I find the counterargument (clash of homonyms) rather weak -- languages are full of homonyms, so the question is academic -- I won't necessarily stick on video, -onis, if a better single word is available. Maybe Gabriel's suggestion videum, -i is better, though not for the reason he gives (borrowing Engl. video in an imaginary Common Romance form; notice that Latin/Rce *videum wouldn't result in French vidéo). Anyway, given videum, it would be easier to form the derivative adjective videalis, which might very well be of use in the long run. --Neander 18:06, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why visificum, which already is attested to mean "video", isn't acceptable. Is there a linguistic reason? "Heri novum visificum gregis Amaranthi in YouTube vidi." doesn't sound bad. Anyway, I would think this is the most conservative thing to do, apart from admitting "video" as an indeclinable foreign borrowing, or video -onis. On the other hand, the construct videum suggests to be odeum and thus a small building or theater of somesort where we see things like movies or whatever. --Rafaelgarcia 18:52, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Now that most videos are seen on electronic screens in people's homes, why aren't videos just plain pelliculae? IacobusAmor 19:16, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
That is what I thought, myself. If a distinction between "video" and "movie" needs to be made, we could use visificum for "video" and pellicula for "movie." Pellicula could in general still do the job. Even in English, I sometimes see videos referred to as "movies" (e.g. "There was a problem loading your movie"). -- Diaphanus 13:22, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Rafael, I was simply inadvertent! I have nothing against visificum. Iacobe, do you think en:Video could be translated by utilising pellicula? --Neander 19:24, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
The only difference seems to be the medium. En: says: "Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion." Just cut the word electronically and you have a more-general concept, which may embrace both Film and Video. If the focus is on the content (the images), why worry about the medium, especially since any distinction of medium is being obliterated, as "film" is increasingly being produced as "video"? IacobusAmor 19:38, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Infact, Iacobe, at the beginning I just used pellicula, pellicula minima in particular, because the video I talked about is less than 4 min long. But since Raphael has proposed "visificum" as more appropriate, personally I think it is the best, for it doesn't borrow anything. Anyway, Neander, Instead of en:Video, I would refer to en:Video clip. Infact, at the beginning Rafael and I were talking about Video since I need a term for it in the page Amaranth, for a music video. If you read at the top of the page Video Clip on wikipedia, you'll see that it's often used as a synonim of music video. And music video itself on wikipedia is defined "A short film". If here in Vicipedia we use pellicula for film, why music video couldn't be something similar? --Poecus 19:42, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
How about something like visificulum ("short/small video") for "video clip"? --Diaphanus 13:25, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
"Video is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion." ="Visifica appellatur technologia qua imaginum stativarum series captae, servatae, transmissae, et recompositae sunt eo consilio ut ex eis pellicula movens creetur." But for video as in music video you would use visificum or visificum musicum.--Rafaelgarcia 19:46, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Ok, except that for the English syntax "captae, servatae ... sunt", Latin opts for "capiuntur, servantur, ...". --Neander 20:56, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Ack! you're right, wrong tense.="Visifica appellatur technologia qua imaginum stativarum series capiuntur, servantur, transmittuntur, et recomponuntur eo consilio ut ex eis pellicula movens creetur." --Rafaelgarcia 21:11, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Perfect! :-) --Neander 21:22, 20 Iulii 2009 (UTC)


Rafael, I see you've chided‎, usor ignotus, for using macrons, and rightly so, because they're not much used in modern publishing; but it's useful for learners to pay attention to such things so they can pronounce the words correctly, so it's uncertain how strongly they need to be chided. That reminds me of something curious that you can verify in the pronunciation documented on recently circulated videotapes of one of the conventicula: the leaders & students, for the most part, pay no (and I mean no) attention to the difference between long & short vowels, and to the difference between single & doubled consonants, and they insert an unwarranted glottal stop between two I's. The result is a rhythm that, according to the facts laid out by W. Sidney Allen in Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin, should have Cicero's shade writhing (whether in agony or merriment isn't for us to know). IacobusAmor 01:58, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly ignoring my messages, switching IPs back and forth. I wonder what his agenda is. Wierd.--Rafaelgarcia 03:23, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Could it be a class of schoolkids? IacobusAmor 03:25, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
No the ips range from Texas, NJ and Connecticut. Given this and the uniformity in editing style, it seems like some one single person is just spoofing the ips.--Rafaelgarcia 03:30, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Prolly the Nebraska butter bandit going out of his way to waste our time again.--Rafaelgarcia 03:33, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
It's reasonably good Latin (if a bit childish sometimes). When the enthusiasm dies down, it would be easy to paste the whole lot into one file in a word processor, convert the macrons to normal vowels, and paste it all back again. Or there may be a bot method. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:15, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
And maybe I was wrong about the "childish". De Principatibus looks much more adult with the macrons removed, at least to my eyes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, if we had adopted a uniform policy on accents, I would be all for it since it helps A LOT in learning!! I would have gone for the ancient practice of apices on long vowels. However, given the various contradictory accenting schemes in use, the visual clash of no accents, macrons and apices is too much for anyone to stomach.
As to the pronunciations of the various Conventiculum participants, I agree that even Terentius' pronunciation strikes we as artificially choppy somehow--somekind of anglicised latin american spanish. There were also some Italians there evidently. Indeed, all the participants seemed to be struggling, but I think I would too!!. I like everyone else am not very good speaking, since I don't have much opportunity to speak with others. Thus, I am not in a position to criticize anyone else.--Rafaelgarcia 02:17, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one can detect some "church Latin" sneaking in there sometimes! IacobusAmor 02:26, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

De sonoRecensere

Rafael, de sono nunc disserui, quantum admodum facile potui. Longius in res physicas non sum profecturus, nam arduum est pedetemptim ambulare in locis mihi nimis ignotis. Hunc tibi misi nuntium, quo te certiorem facerem campum liberum esse: licet, si libet, pergere. Neander 23:25, 30 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Neander, bene quidem fecisti; pagina a te meliorata, cum eam vidi, mihi gaudium dedit; recensui autem res technicas minores, et addidi duas fontes ab Newtono et Eulero scriptas de sono. Si potes et vis, vide paginam de arte scaenica quam incepi (una ex mille paginis desideratis ab omnibus Vicipaediis).
Egomet de arte scaenico multum nescio. Et credo nonnullas paginas olim creatas infectas vel pravas esse; e.g. "theatrum prosae" nomen malum videtur pro fortasse "prose theatre", et "theatrum lyricum" pro "musical opera". Quid suggeres multo adiuvare potest.--Rafaelgarcia 23:45, 30 Augusti 2009 (UTC)


Hello Raphaelgarcia and IacobusAmor. While searching Vicipaedia your ‘disputatio usoris’ particularly caught my eye, and especially the comments on Latin pronunciations in the ‘conventicula’. You both obviously know something about Latin and can even write decent Latin on occasion. Perhaps you are not familiar, however, with the situation in the conventicula. In my country (I am a German graduate student in the U.S.) there are many ‘seminaria’ for ‘Latinitatis viva’, and I have regularly attended them and know something about the conditions involved. First, one cannot insist (or even ask) that everyone pronounce all syllables precisely according to one particular ‘archaeologically’ reconstructed model.The whole thing is voluntary, and if the leaders did that there would be no participants! Secondly, in Europe there are several accepted types of pronunciation, including the Italianate ecclesiastical one, which also has its adherents in the U.S. Some Latin-speakers prefer these “less-restored” models, especially the ecclesastical one. Are the leaders of the conventicula going to forbid them to use it? Thirdly, I have seen the Lexington conventiculum videos, and I must admit my impression is slightly different from yours. Of course many of the people are beginners, but some are very experienced, and at least three of them seem to me to pay careful attention to long and short vowels and obviously know where to put the word accent correctly (and when teaching beginners to speak this is the major battle): these speakers are a young man with a wide brimmed hat who is shown briefly, a woman who is explaining something shown on a projector, and of course Terentius himself. I have studied very closely the norms of classical pronunciation reconstructed by by W. Sidney Allen in Vox Latina, and the sound of these three speakers seem to me to approximate these norms reasonably closely. Terentius speaking in the conventiculum may seem to project a vaguely Latin American Spanish sound, but if one tries to follow the guidelines of by W. Sidney Allen, in fact a kind of Latin American Spanish quality will emerge! Of course Terentius does not do some things suggested by Sidney Allen – for example, he does not nazalize final –m. But this is rarely done in modern schools, to make sure that students hear case-endings. I hope to go to the conventiculum Lexintoniense next summer. Maybe you will come too! AndreasThierfelder170.170.59.139 15:23, 4 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way. We weren't criticizing anyone, just sharing observations. Maybe someday I will be able to go. Salve--Rafaelgarcia 17:49, 4 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

Salve to you Raphaelgarcia. No offence was taken and I hope no offence was given by me. I just was hoping that I should make an explanation for the seminaria of Latinitatis vivae and the conditions which are in them. By the way, the "mother of all conventicula" will happen in ten days in Regensburg, Germany - not too far from my home city. So sorry I can't go (have to study and teach)! This will probably be the biggest (i.e. most populated) conference of people getting together to speak Latin which any one now alive has ever seen! Here is the praeconium: Vale quam optime! AndreasThierfelder128.163.229.23 17:50, 5 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

Rex MomoRecensere

Vale, carissime Rafael, quomodo te habeas? Novam paginam scripsi et tibi adiutum peto, de ista pagina ad scribendas novas res. Non bene Latine scribo, sed in pagina Italica et Francica ire potes.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo 16:53, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)


Hola Rafael, ¿me puedes mirar estas traducciones que he hecho? ¡Como son para poner en un artículo quiero asegurarme de que las he hecho bien! Gratias ago!--Xaverius 20:47, 1 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

  • De Aquis, I.16. Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus pyramidas videlicet otiosas compares aut cetera inertia sed fama celebrata opera Graecorum. ==> Compara las claramente inservibles pirámides o las inútiles, aun de famosas, obras de los griegos con tantas indispensables estructuras de tantos acueductos
A las muchas estructuras tan necesarias de las aguas, compara las pyrámides claramente inútiles, o las otras obras griegas torpes pero celebradas con fama.
  • Variae, VII.6.2. formis autem Romanis utrumque praecipuum est, ut fabrica sit mirabilis et aquarum salubritas singularis. ==> ... pero es [algo] propio en los acueductos de Roma, que es maravillosa su factura y singular salubridad la de las aguas
pero en las formas Romanas cada uno es cosa particular, tal que la factura sea milagrosa y la salubridad de las aguas, singular.
Dí mi mejor esfuerzo.--Rafaelgarcia 22:54, 1 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Muchas gracias, me es muy útil!--Xaverius 12:42, 2 Novembris 2009 (UTC)


Hola Rafael,

Bambifan, el vándalo que se centra en artículos sobre Disney, está vandalizando nuevamente bajo Special:Contributions/ ¿Le podría dar un bloqueo largo? - lleva mucho tiempo usando esa IP. Muchas gracias por adelantado. Reciba un cordial saludo, --Dferg 14:26, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Obstrui. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)


Nemo ut puto, mi Rafaelgarcia, est inter homines bonae mentis qui non dubitet de existentia miri istius chronovistri. Tamen, quia de omnibus rebus pertinentibus ad latinitatem fas est loqui, de hoc alicuius mihi visum est utilitatis ennarare. Vale.--Bruxellensis 15:34, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Nihil dico, amice Bruxellensis, nisi nobis alium modum exsistere quo encyclopaediam scribamur sine rei dubiosae veritatem praesumendo.--Rafaelgarcia 16:27, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Navis SubmarinaRecensere

Quia uteris vocabulum "Batallaria", in re "WORDS" dicitur esse "clapper of a bell, midieval VERYRARE". Quomodo est "battle submarine" latine??? Estne melior "Navis Submarina Militaris"? Etiam, quia uteris adiectivum "subaquanea"? Ex quo dictionario est?

Sorry that is Batalaria with only one L; it means warship. Most submarines are warships but not all. They constitute a special subclass.--Rafaelgarcia 01:06, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Bene, in Dictionarium "The New College: Latin and English" ab Ioanne C. Traupman PH.D. scriptum spectavi et vidi verbum "Navis submarina" esse "submarine" Latine. Si vis eum videre in situ est. Possumne recensere titulum paginae esse "Navis submarina"? et movere verbum "Navis subaquanea" post "Navis submarina" si definitio e dictionario non habes pro verbo "Navis subaquanea"? 01:11, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

There are many attestations for subaquanea, including the lexicon latinitatis recentis. You may look at the list of attestations at Morgan's site.. Submarina is like automobile: it is evidently a malformed word. The ship is not "under the sea", it is under the "surface of the water". Under the sea is the bottom of the sea. How about the ocean? --Rafaelgarcia 01:14, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
'Automobile' is a mixture of Latin and Greek, 'submarinus' is not. It is no more malformed than 'subaquaneus', and your criticism that that the ship is not "under the sea" applies to 'subaquaneus' as well: the ship is not "under water" but "under the surface of the water". There are a lot of attestations for 'submarinus' in (admittedly later) Latin, as you can see here. In view of its closer proximity to modern expressions I would therefore prefer 'navis submarina' to 'navis subaquanea'. --Fabullus 10:14, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Bene dicta... Si est "subaquanea" estne "aquanea" "infraquanea"que? 01:23, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Nescio. Verbum illud subaquaneus egomet non finxi. aqua+neus[2], et multae aliae fontes similes--Rafaelgarcia 01:32, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Ita, intellego, addidi formulam lexici Traupman. Potes eam videre in Navis subaquanea in parte notarum. Si vis, dic me si formula quam creavi bene est? Novissime, in taberna est colloquium rei radioelectrici deprehensionum et quomodo debet appellari. De Gratia (please, nescio si benedixi illud verbum), conferre sententiam tuam ibi in hanc paginam. 01:53, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Nova HantoniaRecensere

a illo tempore sententias cum nomine Nova Hantonia creavi, exempli gratia Index gubernatorum Novae Hantoniae et novam categoriam Categoria:Camerae Repraesentantium Civitatum Foederatarum legati Novae Hantoniae , numquam recente mutavi Novam Hantoniam cum Nova Hantescira, scilicet veteres paginas vidisti? Debemus tamen Supercategoriam:Nova Hantonia creare adhuc Nova Hantescira est --Helveticus montanus 17:18, 30 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

Latina mathematicae et scientificaeRecensere

This is something I have looked at, and in fact what brought me here in the first place. My dates are correct, although I don't know if I can say you're wrong.

The enormous prestige of French indeed played a role from the time of Louis XIV onward to ending the use of Latin. I think by 1700 most French publications were already in the vernacular, and the language was used even outside France by the later 18th century. Latin nearly fell out of use in the universities in the 18th century, which was a huge loss as students no longer learned to be really fluent in modern Latin.

Euler may have been one of the last to really think in Latin; certainly Gauss preferred to write in German after 1801; he only continued in Latin because his publishers required it. The Gottingen academy (Gauss's) finally gave up Latin in 1837 long after it had become dated. I think you overrate the influence of Gauss, too, who in fact did not publish much of his work - his position was a semi-sinecure, and he didn't need to publish anything.

It's true, though, that up to the early 19th century a Latin equivalent of new terms would likely come into being quickly even if they weren't created in Latin. That's why it's important for us to be able to find late uses of Latin. Pantocrator 03:46, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The losss of latin had more to do with the anti-church, atheistic hysteria of the French Revolution (hence the appellation "revolutio"= "turning back" i.e. "turning back against God and Christianity"), than with prestige of French. Remember they even tried to replace the calendar with 10 day weeks so that people wouldn't know which day was sunday! And they required french journals to be published in French rather than latin.--Rafaelgarcia 08:22, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
- The word revolution dates long before the French Revolution. In the political context, I would rather interpret it as 'overturning', rather than 'turning back'.

- Enlightenment philosophy, which you call atheistic, was a cause, not an effect, of the French Revolution. - French was enormously prestigious in the 18th century, before the revolution. It had already replaced Latin for most ordinary types of international communication. It had become the language for a gentleman to know. No, I'm not sure why either, but it did. - I've never seen record of any publication from France in Latin as late as 1789 (though I'm sure there was in the Church, that would not extend to science). Pantocrator 19:57, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

As for ringum, please see Disputatio:Ringum - I'd like to keep discussions in their correct places. Pantocrator 19:57, 5 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Sinice et AngliceRecensere

I deleted the link from "Sinice et Anglice". I hope that's OK. It seemed slightly illogical, and the need for it only seemed to arise because of one formula on the page Lingua Sinica. I've now corrected that formula. Greetings from windy France! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Sorry. Thanks for fixing.--Rafaelgarcia 18:00, 1 Martii 2010 (UTC)

"ars acroamatica"Recensere

Salve! I was going to improve Ars scaenica (as it is one of the 1000 paginae!), and was wondering what you meant by "ars acroamatica". I couldn't find it in any dictionary, and the closest English and Italian words translate as "esoteric", which doesn't seem to be what you meant. What did you mean? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:58, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I just stumbled upon this definition in Lewis and Short: "belonging to a musical or reading entertainment." Would you think that would be equivalent to "performing arts"?--SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:21, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I understood it to be, as an interpretive translation, since performing music and reading poetry are types of performing arts; on the other hand the Romans, being very practical-minded, did not think of art for art's sake as we do today; my understanding is that for them the point of art was for work, for religious worship or for entertainment.--Rafaelgarcia 04:01, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Quintilian (Inst. Orat. 1.18 lateng) divided the arts into three types with Greek names — the theoretica (θεωρητική, the arts which require knowledge but no action; his example is astrologia), the practica (πρακτική, the arts which consist of action but don't produce artifacts; his example is saltatio), and the poetica (ποιητική, the arts which produce artifacts; his example is pictura). Artes practicae in that system would probably correspond closest to 'performing arts'; when placing rhetoric among them he gives activa (= consisting of action) and administrativa (= consisting of performing) as synonyms. —Mucius Tever 03:45, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
What I find unsatisfactory with this term ars practica is that it does not take into account that by performing art, we are not excluding arts such as the 'art of massage', or 'surgery', etc. In other words, art in latin primarily does not simply mean 'ars artis gratia' but simply 1. any special skill developed by work, the skill of a carpenter; 2. the discipline encompassing those who share a special skill: carpentry as such.
Because of the wider sense of the word ars in latin, I believe the differentia distinguishing the art must be more specific in specifying the bellae artes sense , i.e. the artis gratia (for the pleasure of art) sense. Ars acroamatica does this, because the art is done for the listening/entertainment pleasure of the beholder.--Rafaelgarcia 13:38, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should not try to force the Latin language into the English categorization system, and just use the one that the Latin-speakers came up with? Of course this brings up a lot of philosophical questions about Vicipaedia; namely, how much language should we sacrifice to express our culture instead of theirs. Why should we organize things the same way as the English Wiki if that's not how Latin works. This also brings up many questions about the "Master Wiki" that is in the works now. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:42, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Any concept can be rendered/explained in any language, but sometimes not as a single word or by a borrowed word, that is subsequently explained. Certainly, the romans had paintings, sculpture, plays, poems, etc., so they had the concept of art, but not the categorizations that classify the multitudinous art forms we have today.
I don't think that the question is the classifications or their validity for the latin language, but what to call them in latin. I'm pretty sure a 17th century text maybe found, perhaps an encyclopedia or treatise on fine arts that can distinguish the varieties, giving them appropriately descriptive terms. Patient searching I think will be rewarded. For now a temporary term, with appropriate caveats added may be used profitably as a placeholder.--Rafaelgarcia 15:55, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
How about bellae artes activae = performing arts; bellae artes effectivae = visual arts? Can anyone think of an exception that is not encompassed?--Rafaelgarcia 16:57, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Intellego... mostlyRecensere

I understand why I was banned, but what I don't understand is why we are using English titles for Japanese works - can you please explain this to me? Nikolaos 23:10, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

because the publisher sells it under that name? It is after all a proper name, just like a were only blocked for deleting content, without justification(and the way you did it nary a word of explanation with convoluted edits suggesting serial vandalism) is necessary to Move pages to preserve the history of author contributions. A ban is something altogether different--Rafaelgarcia 03:07, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I should take some time to learn how the Wiki works a little better before taking on that kind of edit again. But let me rephrase my question - why is English preferred to Japanese? Admittedly, I didn't change the name of The Legend of Zelda to Japanese, but to Latin (and I did it wrong at that :P), but I don't understand why it is English when the Japanese name would make more sense for a non-English article. Nikolaos 04:09, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Because it is a PROPER NAME. We don't translate proper names unless there is an attested latin form. If the game were sold widely under a japanese name, then we would transliterate that, but not translate it. In particular, this is the COPYRIGHTED name of the game. You can't change that without permission of the copyright holder.-- 04:36, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
@ - You miss my point. The Zelda series is sold widely under a Japanese name, and the Japanese name came first. I am asking why, in such cases (Zeruda no Densetsu is only an example), we don't transliterate (not translate) the original name as opposed to using the English. Nikolaos 05:23, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nikolaos. I don't know enough about the history of the series or the widespreadedness of either the English or the Japanese name. Take into account, however, how the other wikipedias have handled it. Every language with a Latin script (with one exception) and even (maybe surprisingly?) Russian and Greek have used the English title:

ca:The Legend of Zelda, da:The Legend of Zelda (spilserie), de:The Legend of Zelda,

el:The Legend of Zelda (σειρά ηλεκτρονικών παιχνιδιών), es:La leyenda de Zelda, eo:The Legend of Zelda,

fr:The Legend of Zelda (série), gl:The Legend of Zelda, it:The Legend of Zelda,

la:The Legend of Zelda, lt:The Legend of Zelda, nl:The Legend of Zelda (serie),

no:The Legend of Zelda, pl:The Legend of Zelda (seria), pt:The Legend of Zelda (série), ro:The Legend of Zelda (seria), ru:The Legend of Zelda, sco:The Leegend o Zelda, simple:The Legend of Zelda (series), fi:The Legend of Zelda (pelisarja), sv:The Legend of Zelda-serien,

Semitic and Asian languages: ar:ذي ليجند أوف زيلدا (سلسلة), fa:افسانه زلدا, he:האגדה של זלדה, ja:ゼルダの伝説シリーズ, th:เดอะเลเจนด์ออฟเซลดา (เกมชุด), zh:薩爾達傳說系列

One interesting exception is Navajo, but what can you do? Look what they do with the translitteration, though, in Japanese: nv:Zelda bahaneʼ Zelda bahaneʼ (Binááʼadaałtzózíkʼehjí: ゼルダの伝説, Zewoda no Densetso; Bilagáanakʼehjí: The Legend of Zelda)

--Ioscius 08:07, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said above. Let's admit, if the item was first published in Japanese and has not been published in Latin, our straight rule would impose the Japanese name (transliterated into Roman) rather than the English name. But Japanese games, mangas etc. are odd, because the Japanese names are very often imprecise but intentional transliterations of English words. So if we insist on the rule, we get an English word, double-transliterated, hard to spell and hard to understand, instead of a straight English word that's easy to spell and easy to understand. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)

Nice ...Recensere

... to see you back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

ditto!!Welcome back!--Jondel 10:24, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the U.S. Constitution Translation.Recensere

I would like to point out, just in case it was overlooked, that Section 7 of the translation leaves the following words out: unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

In Latin, about... PlaticsRecensere

I understand writing in Latin about the Roman Empire, but, and I'm honestly curious, why would anyone write in Latin about Plastics or polymers, things that Lucretius had not had the faintest inkling about?! -- Dandv 09:23, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion. Should latin be limited to the world of Lucretius(or Cicero)? If we were to use latin today, wouldn't our sphere of communication be severely handicapped? --Jondel 10:23, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Why in the world would we use today a language that severely lacks modern-day vocabulary, or that necessitates the vocabulary to be imported from English, and a language with orders of magnitude fewer speakers than English, and with no research published in it? Let's take medical science alone. English is the language used by all research on PubMed Central, which amounts to [ one new research paper every minute. The amount of useful information in English is staggering, and if for some reason we all had to use Latin right now, we would be screwed as a civilization.
Or are we supposed to use English(with due respect) (or French, Arabic, Chinese, Esperanto,etc)as an international or auxiliary language all the time? --Jondel 10:23, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
English is the lingua franca today (or in some instances even the required international language) in communications, science, information technology, business, aviation, entertainment, radio and diplomacy. See en:English_language#Significance. Please see How many journal articles have been published (ever)? for a glimpse in the massive amounts of useful information in English available today.
I think it is great that there is an article about Plastic in Latin, and there should articles in latin for semiconductors, quantum physics, networking technology, internet technology, set theory, arthroscopy, laser eye surgery, etc. --Jondel 10:23, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

-- Dandv 01:20, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

The main question that arises for me from this bizarre message, is why is this person being so rude and contemptuous and why is he writing this on my discussion page? Is his intent to flame me and fellow Vicipaedians? And if his intent is not to flame, why does he present his statements in an argumentative and condescending manner? Does he perceive latin wiki and my contribution to it to seriously threaten his favorite language?? Should I actually give a sincere answer to his question or is it a mistake that will just encourage him to further act out on some deep seated psychological problem? Perhaps we will never know the answer to these questions, since a person's motivations are difficult to discern from actions.
For now this is my final answer to this thread. Please continue the discussion in some other place other than my personal discussion page.--Rafaelgarcia 05:23, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry ProjectRecensere

Salve! I've just started to substantially edit Vikipaedia and have noticed that the coverage of most chemical elements are lacking at best. I posted here that I was interested in starting a Chemistry Project, but other users said that it would be more effective to just have dicussions on a user talk page. They also said that you and User:IacobusAmor are frequent editors in the chemistry portal. If you would like to help me expand on the information in the chemistry portal (specifically the elements) visit my talk page where I also invited IacobusAmor. Gratias ago. Cbrick77 15:16, 31 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

It's good ...Recensere

... to see you around again! We need you, Rafael! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Spero magis magisque contribuere Andreas, dum meo munere novo fungi linguaque nova loqui disco. Hoc anno apud nostram scholam cathedraticus scientiae computatralis roboticaeque factus sum, quod munus numquam antea feci! --Rafaelgarcia 09:58, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)


Que tal? Can I ask why this is redirected to monitorium? If this is not fixed, I would like to remove the redirect or place an appropriate article in the near future.Amable.Jondel (disputatio) 07:33, 23 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Originally the present page named monitorium (confer Redmond) was incorrectly called scrinium. Because scrinium really only means box or case, it is therefore an unlikely stretch to make it mean the same as computer monitor.
So yes it is a good think to create a page called scrinium that is not a redirect, but instead a list of types of cases. Look at to find and packaging-- 08:42, 23 Maii 2012 (UTC)

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)