Welcome here, Rex!


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!

I would like to thank you as well. Your contributions are beyond average and I was happy to contribute an image somewhere. If I can help anywhere, just tell me. --Roland2 11:38, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may appear to be a stupid question, but have you read my articles? If so, tell me: Are they good, is the Latin even correct, you know, I try my best but I do not learn Latin at school, only for myself, just for the fun of it, and so could you please tell me if my style is correct and where I could improve. Maybe this is too much to ask you, but it's worth trying ^^. --Rex Latini 13:44, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, don't trust my Latin (see above). I've read over your articles and I did not realize mistakes ... which does not mean anything. If you want an expertise about your Latin, you'd better ask users like Usor:Iustinus, who is absent now or for example Usor:Ioshus Rocchio and others. There is also a template {{maxcorrigenda}}. When you are in doubt about the Latinitas of your articles, just put {{maxcorrigenda}} into it. Or {{reddenda}}. Some time ago I've asked for a template which says "Please check my artcle for errors and tell me", however, this idea has been forgotten. Over all, I can say your articles are beyond average. I have looked at the whole article: title, content, formatting, categorization, interwiki links, ..., Latin. ;-) Users with good Latin you'll find here: Categoria:Usor la.

--Roland2 12:10, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)


I see you've removed some links from page Archangelus. I think we should keep these red links, because it is likely that someone will create such a page and then the link automatically becomes a blue link. We have even a special category for names: Categoria:Nomina. Red links shall be a motivation to create an article. Ok, there are situations where we should avoid to link a term, e. g. when you are not sure about the Latinitas of this term ... because other users might create that page. ;-) --Roland2 11:14, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure thing, just thought it looked better without the red ones ^^.
--Rex Latini 21:21, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Lacrimatus est IesusRecensere

Please explain what you mean by these in English, Italian, or Spanish, whichever you prefer:

"igitur corpus suum solidum fuit"

"Sed non cogitatur certe si Iesus lacrimavit quia Lazarus mortuus erat, aut quia propinqui sui in potentiam Iesu non crediderunt, quia lacrimaverant, quamquam Iesus fuit ad eos."

and what if anything you mean to do here:

Lacrimatus est Iesus#Forma grammatica specialis. Thank you.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:59, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

noli sollicitareRecensere

Your latin is impressive for someone without formal training...don't worry, alot of what you said wasn't wrong per se, but could be more eloquently, or academically written. The difference between "see spot run", and "observe that breed of canine named spot at a fast trot" for instance, not that your latin is juvenile. I'm just making it more I guess prosaic... A few things though:genitive of caput is capitis, so that's the stem for all but accusative and vocative singular:

n caput, n
g capitis
d capiti
ac caput (Since caput is neutral, the accusative is caput, too --Rex Latini 00:01, 28 Maii 2006 (MET))
ab capite
v caput

n capita
g capitum
d capitibus
ac capita
ab capitibus
v capita

If you think that your work may need correction, however minor, put {{reddenda}}<br> at the top, and mark it in the comment, that way it can get fixed quickly. This is not to discourage, keep contributing, and your latin will improve rapidly!--Ioshus Rocchio 20:45, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Also in place of Aliud scribe Vide etiam.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:58, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)


Is there really the need for alll those redirects to daemon? Are there that many variations in spelling that someone could possibly be searching for "Dämon" or "Damoni"?--Ioshus Rocchio 17:15, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that wass a problem, it's just that I wanted to make it easier for people who speak German to find "Daemon" when they enter "Dämon" or for the English when they enter "Demon". I won't do that again if it's a problem, I just didn't know.--Rex Latini 19:29, 14 Iunii 2006 (MET)

We have a page Vicipaedia:Redirectio. Making it easier for people to find a page is a good thing, however, providing each possible variant of the title might be too easy. ;-) --Roland2 18:02, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Yes we usually only encourage directs when a latin title is ambiguous, cf scacchi, scaccus, scacci, or mundus, terra, orbis terrarum. For your example, why stop at german? why not also have 悪霊, Демон, or Quỷ redirect to daemon also? I would think that most german speaking visitors would know that daemon won't have a dieresis over the a in latin, just as I wouldn't think a german wiki would have entries in cyrillic script. Does this make sense? of your redirects, I think only these are useful:
  • Daemonismus;
  • Daimon; (greek original translit)
  • Demon; (late latin variation)
  • Dämon;
  • Demoni;
  • Daemoni;
  • Demonus;
  • Daemonus;
  • Daemones; (proper latin plural)

--Ioshus Rocchio 18:48, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)


I asked for your comments on Disputatio:Imperativus several months ago. I will be changing this page, unless I hear back from you. You have included contents which more properly belong at wikibooks, and you have arbitrarily decided what examples and constructions you have talked about. Further, you spend a significant number of lines devoted to hortatory subjunctives, without properly discussing either hortatory or straight imperatives.--Ioshus (disp) 15:21, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)