Disputatio Usoris:Tbook/Vetera

Salve! You seem to be one of our more literate contributors. As nobody else has welcomed you on this page, I feel it is time to make contact.

Maybe you will add a Babel template to your User page to tell us what other languages you can read.

Kind regards - Robin Patterson 02:10 aug 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I really didn't intend to become too involved, but you see one thing that could be improved, and then another, and so on. God bless. --Tbook 22:32 aug 16, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations Tbook! Your contributions are very good and the articles about religion are much better now. If there were more users like you, Iustinus and Myces this Vicipaedia would be a lot better. God bless you! --Mafrius 22:34 aug 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I hope they are better. I expect that if I printed them out and gave them to Reggie Foster, they would come back dripping with multi-colored ink, and he would loose a few more of the scarce hairs on his head. One of the nicest parts of the latin wikipedia seems to me to be the section on the kings of England that Tuor has put so much work into. There might be a good Pagina Mensis in there somewhere. --Tbook 14:48 aug 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first Pagina Mensis was Catharina Aragonensis, so we've been trying to avoid going back to English history. --Iustinus 17:17 aug 20, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at the point we are at, all of the good candidates can probably be sorted out of the first couple pages of: Specialis:Longpages --Tbook 21:30 aug 22, 2005 (UTC) !

Gratias Tibi ago propter nuntium tam benevolum! Spero me aliqua contributa utilia in Vicipaediam adferre. Latinitas mea sopitavit aliquos per annos et egeo indulgentia et exspecto emendationes magna cum gratitudine, sive de lingua, sive de technicis interretialibus, sive de substantia. Vere, sicut dicit Psalmista, "Hine ma tov...", "Bonum est fratres habitare in unum". Velim scribere inter alia de Patribus Ecclesiae et de peregrinationibus. Die 1. Octobris, peregrinaturus ipse sum de Acauno ad Papiam, id est de Sancto Mauritio ad Sanctum Augustinum et Boethium. Memoria de Te et usoribus lectoribusque Vicipaediae facturus sum in precibus meis. Salve valeque, in Christo, --Y.E. Clément 14:33 sep 24, 2005 (UTC)

Vulgata

Gaudeamus, o vicipaediani! Iampridem Vicipaediam de Vulgata articulum habere oportebat! Mihi videor te inter nos omnes esse aptiorem scriptorem ad hoc faciendum :-) Pax domini nostri sit vobiscum. --Mafrius 22:52 oct 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fixes

Salve. Thanks for your agreement to my fixes. I'd like to change some - I believe minor - things with the taberna page, maybe you'd like to add your opinion there. Saying "I don't care" would be helpful as well. ;-) --Roland2 17:57, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Quintus Metullus Numidicus

Do Quintus Met-u-llus Numidicus and Quintus Met-e-llus Numidicus describe the same person? Is Met-e-llus correct? --Roland2 22:48, 6 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Categoria:Religiosi

Your cleanup just minutes ago ... yes! :-) --Roland2 19:08, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

PagMen

I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but be aware that any changes made to the category section of a template don't update in the "daughter pages" until next time that page is edited. Or something like that. --Iustinus 00:04, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Ars grammatica

Shouldn't we have two categories: Categoria:Ars grammatica and Categoria:Ars grammatica Latina? --Roland2 18:45, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am doing, but I don't particularly like it, as most articles seemingly belong in both categories: eg. Nomen (noun) is a universal linguistic concept and hence belongs in Ars Grammatica, but the article also describes the usage of nouns in Latin, and hence belongs in Grammatica Latina. --Tbook 18:47, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Categoria:Grammatica Latina ... fine. Better than Categoria:Ars grammatica Latina ;-) Maybe an article about nouns should be named Nomen and put (only) into category Categoria:Grammatica. If there will be much information about nouns in the Latin language, this information should get an article Nomen (lingua Latina) and put (only) into Categoria:Grammatica Latina. The information that there is a general article about nouns should be just mentioned in article Grammatica Latina, I think. It should be assumed that people reading Grammatica Latina have read the article Grammatica before. Ok, maybe I am too strict ... ;-) --Roland2 19:04, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good system, but it doesn't necessary correspond with the articles we have. I have just finished the sorting. Most I put in one category or the other, but a few (including Nomen (grammatica)) I put in both. See what you thing. --Tbook 19:08, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

The things are changing too dynamically ... I am really stressed ;-) I think we have the same idea ... let me make some remarks:

• When I wrote the above, I have not read your answer in the taberna.
• Just now I have realized that you have changed your answer in the taberna. Aaaaahhh ;-)
• Yes, it's not easy to find a good system for the articles we have now.
• My idea: If we have no articles about Grammatica and just articles about Grammatica Latina we just need a category Grammatica Latina in Lingua Latina and a category Grammatica some time later.
• I think the hierarchy should be Lingua > Grammatica.
• It seems you like Ars grammatica, maybe because it is maybe more than just Grammatica?
• What about Ars > Ars grammatica > Lingua > Grammatica?
• Additionally Scientia > Lingua?
• Ars grammatica = the art of writing and Grammaticia = the technical rules of a language?

Sorry for my style, my English is a bit limited. Please tell me how you understood my ideas and I'll tell you if it's what I wanted to say. ;-) --Roland2 19:47, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Now I had a look at the categories. I think ...

• Categoria:Lingua Latina ... yes
• Linguae Italicae > Lingua Latina ... yes
• Categoria:Grammatica Latina ... yes
• Lingua Latina > Grammatica Latina ... yes
• Ars grammatica > Grammatica Latina ... yes (although I'd prefer Grammatica > Grammatica Latina)
• Ars grammatica > Linguae ... confusing, I'd say no
• Ars > Ars grammatica ... yes
• Scientia humana > Ars grammatica ... yes, if it means more than Grammatica; I'd say no to Scientia humana > Grammatica
• I miss: Linguae > Ars grammatica (or Linguae > Grammatica)

--Roland2 20:53, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a bit better now - I followed the English Wikipedia and created Categoria:Linguistica and put both Ars Grammatica and Linguae in it. I think it would be fine to rename Ars Grammatica to just Grammatica. Perhaps Ars Grammatica originally was intended to be a purer latin term for linguistics, but creating the linguistica category would make that a duplication. --Tbook 18:00, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion it is better. Linguistica is a term I understand and - more important - it fits well into the hierarchy. Now even Ars Grammatica is less confusing to me. I support your assumption that it was intended to have a broader meaning than just Grammatica. BTW, thanks for your help with Unguentarium etc. --Roland2 22:41, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Your help on the Papa Anacletus page was most appreciate, it seems that since I left I've got even worse in the language. :) Alexanderr 02:32, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Convention for "discretiva"

Please see http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicipaedia:Taberna#Convention_for_.7B.7Bdiscretiva.7D.7D --Roland2 23:04, 1 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Persona non est grata

Nota bene: persona Anglice "mask" vel "character" significat. Homo Anglice "person" significat. Utere homines, non personae, ut "people" dicas. Exempli gratia, utere non "Personae Biblicae", sed "Homines Biblici", aut, sis, solum "Biblici". Ego "Biblici" malo. -Adamas 05:11, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Dear Adam,

While it is true that Persona originally refers to a mask in a theatre, then to a character, it then receives grater development through Christian theological reflection on the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ, it also the sense of refering to an individual, or to the subject of rights (as in a corporation or juridical person.) Hence, Lewis and Short Persona 2. - Hence, A human being who performs any function, plays any part, a person, personage. 3. In the grammarians, a person. For Categoria:Personae Biblicae, Persona is preferable to Homines, as it refers both to characters in the bible and to the persons who figure in various roles in Scripture. --Tbook 15:21, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. But I still say simply Biblici ("Biblical people" or "Biblical ones") would get the same job done much more simply, and without requiring that Vicipaedia weigh in on the issue of whether individuals in the Bible are "characters/parts" or "people/humans". It's not only easier to remember and faster to type, but also more consistent with the common style for other subcategories of Categoria:Homines, which use a simple plural ending much more often than vir, homo, persona, etc. -Adamas

17:01, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Biblici would have been a nice, elegent way of doing it. --Tbook 19:35, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Layout_of_maxcorrigenda

Please have a look at [1]. --Roland2 10:36, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Jean Carzou

De Jean Carzou, pagina correcta est. Si autem dissentis, te ipse eam corrige. Vale.

Pius I

Contra, bonum auxilium tulisti mihi. Gratias ago tibi. Inopinatum fuit. --Marc mage 16:06, 28 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Imago:Chair-Peter.jpg

Hi Tbook, you didn't write the licence for the image.--84.160.244.248 12:33, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)