Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 15" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Linea 511:
:Good question. I prefer to be "conservative": only transfer the Latin name to the new place if we have a source for doing so. So I would stick with "Montserrat (Buenos Aires)". Others may disagree ... <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 19:03, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::If the New World place is named for an Old World place that has a good Latin name, then obviously the Latin name carries over; hence [[Athenae (Alabama)]], [[Mediolanum (Ohium)]], [[Novum Eboracum]], [[Roma (Georgia)]], etc. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:58, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
==Commands etc.==
Dear Vicipaedians, perhaps it would be useful to invest additional energy in some of the more frequently used 'meta' translations. They are the face of Vicipaedia for newcomers, who might arrive with doubts as to the quality of the Latin used here. One text that has bothered me for a while is this: ''Conventum aperire. Num rationem non habes? Eam crea. Cookies potestatem facere debes ut conventum aperire. Nomen tuum usoris: ... Tessera tua: ...'' If I did not know the English model, this would be thoroughly incomprehensible. Leaving the grammatical mistakes (''num non'', ''ut'' + infinitive) and stylistic incongruities (''eam'', ''nomen tuum'' + ''usoris'') aside, are we really agreed on the terminology? How is one to guess that ''rationem habere'' is to mean 'to have an account'? What about the miraculous ''cookies potestas''? Is a ''conventus'' really what one is looking for when signing in? For all the difficulty of translating computer terms into Latin, maybe there is room for improvement.--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 18:22, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
| |||