Disputatio Vicipaediae:Articulus
Latest comment: abhinc 18 annos by Iustinus
| Cur uerbum articuli fere utimur ut "articles" Latine dicamus? Quod articulus "joint" uel "portion" uel "juncture" primo significauit, nonne pagina uel res quod uti solemus? Si sic non est, quae uerba uti malumus dicere debemus, ut antiquiora declarentur. -Adamas 04:03, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) | Why do we so often use the word articuli to say "articles" in Latin? Don't we usually use pagina or res because articulus originally meant "joint" or "portion" or "juncture"? If that's not so, we should say which words we prefer to use, so that the preferred ones are made clear. |
| Puto te recte monere, "articulum" non dicendum. Scripta brevia, quae linguis patriis "article," "articulo" audiunt, Latine "commentationes" saepe nominantur -- quod vocabulum commendo. Sat magna pars locutionum ac vocabulorum quae in locis Vicipaediae communibus passim conspiciuntur, eiusdem fere modi sunt: nempe vocabulorum Latinorum forma sive facie induta sunt, sed significatione linguarum vernacularum propria pollent. Neque licet participibus talia mutare. Porro si quis in disputationum paginis errores istius modi corrigendos proposuerit, non facile aliorum consensum assequetur, cum multi sint participes, qui Latine nondum bene sciant. Quae res ne impediat vereor, quominus Vicipaedia in melius mutetur neu a peritioribus pluris fiat. Severus Censor, 11 Apr. 2006. | [I believe you are quite right to note that "articulus" is not the appropriate word for "article." Short writings on a given subject are often called "commentationes" in Latin -- I would recommend this word be used. Many of the words and expressions now found in the common areas of Vicipaedia are of this sort: they have the form and appearance of Latin words, but are being used with the meaning of words that look similar in the modern languages. The problem is that users can't change these words; and if you bring up the problem in a discussion page like this, it's difficult to obtain consensus on it, as many users do not yet have a good enough knowledge of Latin to recognize the proper solution. This situation seems to me a real problem, as it could stand in the way of the improvement of Vicipaedia and its being taken more seriously by those most skilled in Latin. Severus Censor, 11 Apr. 2006.] |
| Hoc esse incommodum magnum, sed non esse inexsuperabile, congruo. Primum ad tractandum hanc rem est efficere ut uocabula uerum utamur in locis insignibus: Pagina Prima ipsa sexiens formas articulus uerbi uulgo usurpat; illud mutare propagationem usurpationis malae uerborum Latinorum retardet. Secundum est facere paginam in qua optime Latine reddita uerba uulgares quae sunt ad rem Vicipaediae (quod nonnumquam efficiat ut complures formas gratas, e.g., uerba uaria uerbi usor, scribamus) clare scribitur. Tertium est uerbo quaerere formas uerbi articulus in Vicipaedia et, ubi ea abutuntur, ea reponere uerbis gratis (et dare libellum de re usoribus qui identidem errant). | I agree that this is a major problem, but it's not an insurmountable one. The first step to dealing with this issue is to make sure that we use the correct terminology in prominent places: the Main Page itself currently uses forms of articulus six times; changing that would slow down the propagation of misused Latin words. The second step is to create a page which clearly lists the ideal Latin translations of common words relevant to Wikipedia (which may in some cases mean listing several acceptable forms, like the various variants of usor). The third step is to do a text search for forms of articulus on Wikipedia and, where they're being misused, replace them with acceptable synonyms (and give a notice about the issue to the user for "repeat offenders"). -Adamas 08:19, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) |
| Sed si volumus non uti verbo "Articulo" malo "Symbolum" quam "Commentationes," cum brevior sit. Sed puto mihi esse dicere quod venerabiles Lewis & Short "Articulus" aiunt " II A Of discourse, a member, part, division." et "C. Of other abstract things, part, division, point" et ergo non totaliter extraneus est pro parte encyclopediae. --Tbook 19:42, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) | However, if we prefer not to use the word "Articulus," I would prefer "Symbolum" rather than "Commentationes", as it is shorter. Still, I think it behoves me to point out that the great Lewis & Short say: "Articulus II A Of discourse, a member, part, division." and "C. Of other abstract things, part, division, point"--Tbook 19:42, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) |
| Nisi fallor, symbola, non symbolum, Mediaeuale Latinum uarium symbolus ("token, symbol"), a uerbo Graece symbolon, signum a quo rem scit uel infert, te in animo habuisse puto. Sed nonne symbolum fere "contribution" significat? Itaque uerba ulla, neque articulus (ui et "pars sermonis" uel "pars rei", non est similis "article"), significationem "article" habere non uidentur. Longitudo uerbi minus grauis quam subtilitate est; si commentatio uel commentationes est uerbum optimum ut "article" dicamus, usurpationem illius suadere et factitare debemus. Et si sunt alia bona uerba quae usurpari etiam possunt ut hoc significent, optiones amplius quam uno usoribus dare, ut supra dixi, etiam possumus. Exempli gratia, si fons memorabilis est quae symbolum "article" ui recente significare uulgo usurpari adfirmat, illud esse optio scribere possemus. Male, nulla optionum, quae hactenus paratae sunt, uere esse classicae uidentur, sed illa esse meliora quam funditus malis usubus, e.g., articulus, puto... | Unless I'm mistaken, I think you meant symbola, not symbolum, a Medieval Latin variant of symbolus ("token, symbol") from Geek symbolon, a sign by which one knows or infers a thing. But doesn't symbola refer to a "contribution" in general? So it doesn't seem like any of those words fit the meaning of "article", nor does articulus (even in the sense of "part of a discourse" or "part of a thing", it doesn't have much to do with "article"). How lengthy a word is is less important than how accurate it is; if commentatio or commentationes is the best word to mean "article", we should recommend, and practice, the use of that. And if there are other good words that can also be used to mean this, we can always, as I said above, provide more than one option to users. For example, if there's a noteworthy source that says that symbolum is commonly used to mean "article" in the modern sense, we could list that as an option. Unfortunately, none of the options provided thus far seem very classical, but I suppose it's better than complete misuses like articulus... -Adamas 00:02, 13 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) |
| Quin utimur "rem" in "articuli" loco? | Why not use "res" instead of "articulus"? Sinister Petrus 19:45, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC) |
Non faveo uso "rei", pagina concisiust. Clariter "articulus" electast causa vis linguae Anglicae in mentibus hominum. Vim hanc piemur! Usum "paginae" suggero.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:00, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Cum serotinus huic paginae adveniam: "articulus" non tantum joint significat, potest esse article SED non hic. Est article, nisi fallor, quoad significat "sectio documenti foederis." Ego pro article vicipaedia propono et commentationem et symbolen. Nonnumquam "res" et "pagina" etiam dici poterunt, sed quando opus erit nomine specifico, haec verba deficiunt. --Iustinus 01:30, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)