Disputatio Usoris:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary

edit vs. revision

edit

emendatio seems to mean exactly the same. I would propose to use only recensio, not emendatio (alas, not all edits are actually an improvement ;-( )

Quite true. Quite agreed. We can use emendatio a little more colloquially. But officially let's go with the more political term.--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:49, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Until we find a better solution, I would propose to use recensio for "edit" and emendatio for "revision" (see below). --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No objection.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:44, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

revision

Currently, we seem to use emendatio or forma here. What would be a good term for this? "Forma" is not too specific, and to me, "emendatio" seems to be not the best possible choice.

In the eighteenth century, 'a revise [sic], revising' was recensio, recognitio, & iterata castigatio, and 'emendation' was correctio & emendatio (Ainsworth's dictionary). IacobusAmor 15:58, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

recensio is certainly common for books. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish between "edits" (edit processes, see above near the top of the page: "edit") and "revisions" (the state of a page in between two edit processes). We currently use recensio for edits. We could change this and use recensio for revisions, but in my view we should then find a different word for edits. --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Until we find a better solution, I would propose to continue to use recensio for "edit" (see above near the top of the page) and to use emendatio for "revision". --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Support again.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Pro "emendationibus" (praesertim cum agitur de "emendationibus prioribus") propono illud generalius "versio". Nam et novae versiones non semper emendatiores esse constat.

Ehem, cum autem "versio" etiam referat ad vertendos sermones (Anglice → Latine ...), quid de voce "redactionis"? Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:04, 22 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

recent changes

I confess that nuper mutata would be more idiomatic than mutationes recentes (the same applies to a lot of our -tio phrases), but a lot of these awkward terms have grown on me as part of Wikipedia. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with nuper mutata if this is more idiomatic. Should we switch over to nuper mutata? --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is objection, I will switch over to nuper mutata. --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Support.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:44, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

revert/rollback/undo

revert/rollback

Is this a made-up noun? (The English verb 'roll back' is two words.) I don't find such a noun in L&S. The -or suffix is usually masculine: -or, -oris. For a noun, is something wrong with reversio, -onis ? If we want a verb, doesn't revertor 'I turn back' seem rather like a middle ('I turn myself back')? That is, we can't use it to mean 'turn something back'? IacobusAmor 03:02, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No, Iacobus, it's a verb. In the European tradition, the 2s present active indicative is sometimes given after the first principle part. --Iustinus 04:31, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

sorry for causing confusion here - yes, I was talking about the verb. Similarly, I am often confused which declension people are referring to when talking about "1st declension" or "4th declension" - which is which? I am used to referring to them as "o-declension" (populus, -i and templum, -i), "a-declension" (silva, -ae), "u-declension" (magistratus, -us) etc. --UV 01:02, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

undo

"undo" is distinguished from "revert" in the English language version. We do not currently distinguish it, which may lead to confusion (as there are two links marked "reverti" that do different things). Is there a good word for "undo" besides reverti?

Reddere maybe?--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:49, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

There's GOT to be a good word for "undo," but so far I can only find things like renere "undo needlework", recano "undo a spell." --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Until we find a better word, I would propose to use reddere for "undo" then. --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Support.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:44, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Reddere does not have this meaning so far as I can tell.[1] Even if I can be shown to be wrong about this, the word has too many meanings to be useful here: people won't think of "undo", but rather "give back; render." Abrogare or irritare seem more apt. --Iustinus 01:26, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really thinking of it as a direct translation of undo, more of the sense of return (to original state).--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:48, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad if we could find something different from reddere. Abrogare then? --UV 01:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about abrogare: based on the dictionary definitions given in the L&S, if abrogare means to undo a revision, obrogare would mean to overwrite it (by editing an older version) ;) --Iustinus 04:35, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

section

Hmm, well sectio is a real word. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Stowasser does not translate sectio as "section, part", only as "the act of cutting something apart". Can we use it in the meaning of "part"? --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Stay with pars until meaning of sectio is confirmed? --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I prefer pars for my part.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Pars will do for now. As for sectio, L&S does list its geometric meaning as classical, but I guess that's as close as we get to the modern meaning. Maybe we can find something more apt later. --Iustinus 01:26, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

talk

Traupman gives disputatum for "discussion"--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:44, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Both terms are currently used by Vicipaedia (disputatio:Lucunculus vs. "Disputatum meum"), and honestly I kind of like it that way. Note though that this is another case of -tio vs. -tum. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how dead languages change! In the eighteenth century, 'discussion, a discussing' was investigatio (Ainsworth's dictionary); and Cicero's disputatio—not any disputatum—was 'a discourse, a disputation, a reasoning, arguing, talking, or debating; a dispute, a debate'. IacobusAmor 15:58, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

You keep using phrasings like that. Do you really think these variations in dictionaries reflect changes, or are you being facetious? I cannot at the moment research whether or not disputatio can mean "(general) discussion" in Cicero, but that usage is definitely common now: e.g. Rule #1 of the Grex Latine Loquetium: "Non licet disputare, nisi Latine!"

Stowasser only has disputatio, not disputatum. Should we continue to use both terms interchangably? --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

No significant change then at this time here? --UV 00:23, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I like both too.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Actually, guys, I might suggest changing it to disputata mea?--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:48, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

subcategory

Don't want to step on any toes, and maybe its the Angloglot in me, but I like subcategoria. Categoria inferior is a little more pure, but...--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:45, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ioshus. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

OK, so this is subcategoria, -ae f.. --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

login/logout

I've often wondered if solvere might be better than finire. Word order is fine. --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

OK, so switch to conventum solvere here? --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Traupman gives finire and terminare. Solvere sounds to me like we're unravelling the conventum. Convince me Iustine, I'm certainly open on this one.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of solvere in the sense of "untying" or "shoving off" a ship from the dock. I think it wouldn't be hard to find other places where it would mean "disconnect." Hmm, and what about concludere? --Iustinus

Oh, and by the way, if you're having trouble with solvere, think of dissolvere. --Iustinus 01:37, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, concludere.--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:47, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm changing this to concludere. --UV 01:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Heu, heu, sic transit gloria wiki. --Iustinus 02:20, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

cursus electronicus aut cursus publicus electronicus?

Here I think inscriptio electronica "Electronic Address" would be better than cursus [publicus] electronicus "Electronic Mail System." --Iustinus 16:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

OK, inscriptio electronica? --UV 21:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this. Cursus blah blah blah is awkward as hell.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Now we need the verb:

Maybe mittere nuntium sub inscriptione electronica (speaking of awkward!)

mittere litteras electronicas.--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:46, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

And the actual noun:

nuntium electronicum, littera electronica?--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:59, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Well, really you can use any word for "letter" or "message." Myself, I most commonly use litterae (please note: plurale tantum!) --Iustinus 01:26, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Of course, litterae. What about epistula or as Traupman gives it epistolae-arum

What? Epistola isn't plurale tantum! Yeah, in decending order, my preference is: litteras electronicas, epistulam electronicam, nuntium electronicum. --Iustinus 02:20, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised about the plural of epistola. Surprised about the o/u choice, too. Litterae electronicae is fine by me.--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:46, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

In Greek it is, of course, always spelled with an o, but in Latin it can be either an o or a u. The plurale tantum thing, though, surely must be based on a confusion with litterae. --Iustinus 04:31, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

cur infinitivis utimur pro imperativis?

apud mediaviciam semper quantum sciam infinitivi adhibentur pro imperativis: "celare hoc nuntium", "quaerere", "recensere", etc. cur hoc facimus? estne quid subintellectum? mihi non plane occurrit usus huiusmodi nisi cum "iube(te)", "veta(te)" imperativis. redolet mihi saltem Anglicismo ex usu finali "(in order) to X", sed si vellemus hoc intendere potius coniuncitivis uteremur nonne? --Andreas 16:20, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#imperatives et Disputatio:Pagina prima/Tabularium2#Infinitives vs. imperatives. --UV 00:20, 2 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

"account"

Plerumque mihi satis esse videtur vel nomen dare (pro illo "login") vel secedere (pro illo "logout"). Rarissime tantum superest necessitas, ut habeatur vox quaedam pro "account" ponenda, e.g. in modis (ita dictis praeferentiis) uniuscuiusque usoris. Loco "rationis" propono vocem personae, sicut in theatris aguntur, non eodem, sed simili modo ac alibi dicitur avatar. Laurentianus (disputatio) 14:46, 22 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Urbs autem Vaticana ut videtur verbo ratione utitur; vide hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:44, 22 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Iam incidi in commentationem tuam abhinc quindenam fere factam. Probe dixisti apud Vaticanenses rationem esse idem quod "account". Apud eos autem agitur de pecuniis dispensandis, in reti vero, ut arbitror, de entitate quadam, cui proprietates attribuuntur velut nomen, accessus, modi (ita dictae praeferentiae), inscriptio electronica, etc. Nonne persona tibi magis idonea vox videtur? Cui maxima est similitudo ac illi. Laurentianus (disputatio) 00:48, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)