Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 15" differant
Content deleted Content added
UV (disputatio | conlationes) m +cat |
m bot: replace user signature per Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag with user permission; mutationes minores |
||
Linea 1:
== [[:Categoria:Glossaria]] ==
I would like to move our glossaries (see the above category for a list of them) to '''Vicipaedia:''' space. They are very useful to editors but they don't seem to be like encyclopaedia pages, and they generally don't have interwiki links. Am I right?
:What and where is Vicipaedia:space?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 19:00, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)
::It means adding the prefix '''Vicipaedia:''' to the pagenames as an indication that these are not encyclopaedia pages, but support pages. They remain just as easy to find. For example, [[Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis]].
:::thank you, I understand.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 20:23, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)
::::I think this is a good idea, Andrew. --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::::[I therefore made the move, but ...]
:::::The en has the glossaries in the article name space, though ([[:en:Portal:Contents/List of glossaries]]).--[[Usor:Chris1981|Chris1981]] 02:42, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
::::::My feeling was that most of ''our'' glossaries have a different aim from most of theirs: ours aim to help us translate from modern languages into Latin. But if I'm wrong after all, it isn't difficult to reverse the decision. There are only fifteen or so.
== Scriptores et auctores ==
Quae est differentia inter categorias [[:categoria:Scriptores Poloniae]] et [[:categoria:auctores Polonici]]? --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 09:08, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
:"Scriptores ..." est categorizatio geographica: hi Poloniam habitaverunt. "Auctores ..." est classificatio linguistica: illi Polonice scripserunt.
::Gratias ago. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 09:35, 28 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Linea 25:
== Central Wiki ==
Salvete! I don't know how many of you are aware, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Wikimedia is in the planning stages of designing a "Central Wiki". Basically, every article will link to this central wiki, and all interwiki links will radiate from the central wiki instead of being a confusing web that they are now. More info [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:A_central_wiki_for_interlanguage_links here]. I was wondering your opinions on the matter. Quid putas? <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 15:52, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for the link, anyway. I don't think it will be an easy thing to do, but they have been talking about it for long enough, so let them try! The idea of trying to maintain the current type of interwiki links, when all 270 wikis have reached the size of the English one, terrified me.
: The current way of how interlanguage links are stored and maintained is definitely suboptimal. It was high time to consider a redesign. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:12, 3 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
::It seems that the proposers are sensitive to issues of language imperialism, etc.. The central wiki is not intended to have encyclopedic articles on it; just a database of interwiki links. The upshot is that it will make our work a lot easier.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/173.70.154.122|173.70.154.122]] 00:22, 4 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== OT Request ==
I know this is not strictly related to Wikipedia, so I apologize for that, but this is also probably the best place to find real expert of Latin, not only the classic one, but also the Latin of Middle Age. I need help to write something that I need for my last novel. I would really appreciate if some of you might help. In particular, if you know Gregorian Hymns, it would be perfect. Thank you in advance and sorry for my OT request. PS I speak both English and Italian. I know some Latin but I am not an expert.--[[Utente:dejudicibus|Dario de Judicibus]] <small> ([[
:Nessuno che mi può dare una mano?--[[Utente:dejudicibus|Dario de Judicibus]] <small> ([[
::Se cerchi i testi dei Canti Latini e Gregoriani puoi cercare qui:
*
*
A me il latino piace moltissimo e sono utente di Vicipaedia, ma sono solo studente. Spero che qualcuno più esperto di me ti dia una mano!--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 20:53, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 47:
::From the very same Constitutio:
:::* Prologus - ''...decernimus ut electio in '''Sacello Sixtino''' futurum in tempus etiam explicetur...''
:::* Caput II, n. 13, lit. c - ''...qui huius Constitutionis n. 46 commemorantur, utque ea omnia simul parentur necessaria in '''Sacello Sixtino''', unde singulae partes electionem attingentes expleri possint modo quidem facili...''
:::* Caput III, n. 53 - ''Peracta autem meditatione, qui eam protulit de '''Sacello Sixtino''' cum Pontificiarum Celebrationum Liturgicarum Magistro egreditur.''
:::* Caput IV, n. 54 - ''...ne de omnibus in '''Sacello Sixtino''' peractis silentium ullo pacto violetur...''
:::* Caput V, n. 65 - ''...Cardinales electores soli in '''Sacello Sixtino''' esse debent...''
::A search in google with '''"cappella sixtina" site:.va''' delivers just 1 hint, nota bene the beforementioned entry in the constitutio. The same search for Sacellum Sixtinum delivers 3 hints in different Vatican papers. As stated I could imagine that the meaning of Sacellum is used rather as that of an eigenname. I don't know about the official denomination but different indicators (official Vatican papers, all transcripts of the radio broadcasts by the Pope out of the Sistine Chapel are underlined with ''Nuntius radiophonicus e sacello Sixtino'', the papal letter I mentioned) point in this direction and I dare to touch the doctrine of infallibility and think that the ''Capellam Sixtinam'' has been added by mistake to the Constitutio.-- [[Usor:El Suizo|El Suizo]] 11:58, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Linea 66:
|-
| width="50%" style="background:#FFFFE0;border:2px solid #EECFA1;padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;text-align:justify;font-size:95%" valign="top"|
<font size='3'><center>
<p align='justify'>
[[
The '''Royal Gold Cup''' or '''Saint Agnes Cup''' is a solid gold covered cup lavishly decorated with [[:en:vitreous enamel|enamel]] and pearls. It was made for the French royal family at the end of the 14th century, and later belonged to several English monarchs, before spending nearly 300 years in Spain. Since 1892 it has been in the [[:en:British Museum|British Museum]], and is generally agreed to be the outstanding survival of late medieval French plate. It has been described as "the one surviving royal magnificence of the [[:en:International Gothic|International Gothic]] age", and to [[:en:Thomas Hoving|Thomas Hoving]], former director of the [[:en:Metropolitan Museum of Art|Metropolitan Museum of Art]] in New York, "of all the princely jewels and gold that have come down to us, this is the most spectacular—and that includes the great royal treasures."
<p align='right'>
| width="50%" style="background:#FFFFE0;border:2px solid #EECFA1;padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;text-align:justify;font-size:95%" valign="top"|
<font size='3'><center>
<p align='justify'>
[[
'''''Epifania''''' és un [[:ca:dibuix|dibuix]] en carbonet de l'artista del [[:ca:renaixement italià|renaixement italià]] [[:ca:Michelangelo Buonarroti|Michelangelo Buonarroti]], datat [[:ca:circa|circa]] 1550-1553. Està realitzat sobre vint-i-sis làmines de paper amb unes dimensions de 232 cm d'altura per 165 cm d'amplada. El dibuix consta de cinc personatges principals amb algunes altres figures menys definides al fons de l'obra. Després d'haver passat per diversos propietaris, el dibuix es conserva actualment a la sala 90 del [[:ca:Museu Britànic|Museu Britànic]]. Se l'identifica amb la referència PD 1895-9-15-518.
<p align='right'>
|-valign="top"
| width="50%" style="background:#FFFFE0;border:2px solid #EECFA1;padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;text-align:justify;font-size:95%" valign="top"|
<font size='3'><center>
<p align='justify'>
[[
'''Tabula Rosettana''' est [[:la:stela|stela]] decreto de rebus sacris in [[:la:Aegyptus antiqua|Aegypto]] anno [[:la:196 a.C.n.|196 a.C.n.]] lato inscripta. Tabula iuxta [[:la:Rosetta|
Inventio stelae, linguis duabus et [[:la:scriptura|scripturis]] tribus inscriptae, eruditis [[:la:Institutum Aegypti|Instituti Aegypti]] statim nuntiata est; ibi enim iussu imperatoris [[:la:Neapolio Bonaparte|Napoleonis]] eruditi omnium scientiarum (sub aegide [[:la:Commissio Scientiarum et Artium (1798-1801)|Commissionis Scientiarum et Artium]]) properaverant cum [[:la:Expeditio in Aegyptum Francica|expeditione Francica]]. Qua a [[:la:Regnum Britanniarum|Britannis]] mox debellata, tabula Rosettana [[:la:Londinium|Londinium]] missa hodie apud [[:la:Museum Britannicum|Museum Britannicum]] iacet.
<p align='right'>
| width="50%" style="background:#FFFFE0;border:2px solid #EECFA1;padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;text-align:justify;font-size:95%" valign="top"|
|}
Witty lama mihi sic scribit: "Do you think you can have it appear on the main page of latin wikipedia THIS SATURDAY so it can coencide with the Royal Gold Cup appearing on the English Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/July_10,_2010]
::Certe te id agere placeat mihi.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 16:34, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
::: {{Polytonic|εὖγ' εὖγε, νὴ Δί', εὖγε!!!}} Fiat ita! --[[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 16:48, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Linea 95:
:::::Mihi quoque placet! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:25, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:: Great work, congratulations! Let us add [[Tabula Rosettana]] to the main page, of course! --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:30, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:::Procul dubio celebrandum ostendendumque est! Macte! --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::Id nunc feci. An recte translatus sum "Featured Article"?! Si quis meliorare velit, recense s.t.p. {{fn|Laudatio}} et {{fn|PaginaLaudata}}.
Just writing to say ''eugepae''! --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 00:30, 10 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks to all. I could revert the changes to the Pagina Prima now, I guess; [[Tabula Rosettana]] is in any case booked as next month's Pagina mensis.
== Asteroids ==
Remember the discussions at [[Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids]] that led to the creation of about 1000 pages on named asteroids (e.g. [[29 Amphitrite]]) ... Was this a useful thing? Should we ask Robert to do another batch? Please comment at [[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch]].
== "Opus lyricum" ==
We have a plethora of articles using ''opus lyricum'' for the genre known in English as 'opera'. Its ahistoricity is problematic. For example, we learn that "'''[[Alcina]]''' est opus lyricum a Georgio Friderico Händel creatum"—but Handel wrote operas of a genre now universally called ''opera seria'' (not ''lyrica'') and must have been surprised to have been told that he was writing the equivalent of ''opéra lyrique.'' Most operas were placed by their contemporaries in any of numerous genres more specific than "opera," which serves today as a useful catchall for the lot. Is ''opus lyricum'' the broadest attested term available? Thousands of potential articles are begging to be classified under a heading & concept that might include all the genres listed at [[:en:List of opera genres|List of opera genres]], but ''opus lyricum'' (= ''opéra lyrique'') looks too specific for them. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:04, 14 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== Wiki rankings ==
Check out this [[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes|list]] I generated. I created a script that will list all the 1000 pages on vicipaedia along with their weighted sizes, which is helpful for improving our score! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 03:12, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:That looks extremely useful. If it's possible to link in some way to the Latin article, even handier: failing that, even to link to the English one would be good. But meanwhile, yes, we can work with this! Are you certain of the scores? My calculation for [[Lingua Francogallica]], which I was working on last night, made it a fair bit smaller than your figure at "French language"; but if these are the sizes they work with, that's all that matters, I guess.
::Bear in mind that the official formula ignores interwiki links and possibly hidden text. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:09, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:::The whole score calculation process confuses me. Take the page [[Marilyn Monroe]]. When I ran the script it gave me the following numbers: article_size=6513; langauge_weight=1.1; interiki_length=0; comments_length=24. And then, the script outputs the final scores to a *.txt file, on which it gives 7137.9, which equals (article_size - interwiki_length - comments_length) * language_weight. What confuses me is where that first number comes from. Right now in historia paginae the size says 7097, and if I copy the interwikis and paste them into the harenium it says there are 2885 characters worth. So where does the script get 6513 from? I don't know. I think we will just have to wait until the next "official" dump happens, and we can compare our numbers with theirs. <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 13:25, 18 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== 41 000, 42 000, 43 000 ==
Per me pagina no. 41,000 fuit [[1021 Flammario]], a Roberto Baruch die 18 Iulii creata. Multi asteroidum nomina e familia [[Camillus Flammarion|Camilli Flammarion]] dempta gerunt.
Si recte numeravi, pagina no. 42,000 fuit [[Ishtar terra]] a me nuper creata.
Et no. 43,000 fuit [[2995 Taratuta]]. Ratio huius nominis nescio ... fortasse ad honorem [[:en:Olga Taratuta|Olgae Taratuta]] qui haud procul ab observatorio nata est.
: Olga Taratuta?! Hahahae! Erat ''anarcho-communist''! Verum dico vobis: ad honorem Evgeniyae Aleksandrovae Taratuta, quae erat auctor et doctor literarum. (vide etiam: [http://books.google.com/books?id=KWrB1jPCa8AC&lpg=PA246&dq=taratuta%20asteroid&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=taratuta%20asteroid&f=false hic]) --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 13:24, 20 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== Homines vivi who are dead on other wikipedias ==
I am about to ask [[:de:User:Merlissimo]], who was recently [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-26/News and notes|proclaimed]] a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=375576703&oldid=375575718 rock star] by [[Iacobus Wales|Jimbo Wales]], to bring his newest tool to la.wikipedia as well – please see [[Vicipaedia:Mortui dicti]] and improve the page (possibly including moving it to a better title) before I ask [[:de:User:Merlissimo]] to begin to create and update the list. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:20, 28 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
: I now asked [[:de:User:Merlissimo]] to proceed. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:59, 30 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== Signum pro 1000 paginis? ==
Lingua Catala ut videtur proprium mille paginarum signum habet: vide [[:ca:Gramàtica]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:48, 29 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
== Serial killer ==
Vide paginas [[Marcellus Petiot]], [[Damnatio ad furcam]], [[Psycho (pellicula)]]. Auxilium peto: "serial killer" [[Latine]]? In vocabolario meo serialis non est. Vobis iam gratias ago--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 07:06, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:Nescio: est fortasse sensu verbi "habitual" similis; ''an habitual liar'' "homo mendaciis assuetus", ''an habitual adulterer'' homo stuprorum exercitatione assuefactus", ergo ''an habitual killer'' "homo trucidatione assuefactus"?
::Aut fortasse ''interfector {{Lewshort|frequens}}''. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 10:40, 31 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
:::Simplicior, ergo melior!
::::Pro ''serial'' in ''serial killer'', linguae Romanicae idiomate ''in serie'' utuntur (''asesino en serie, tueur en série'').
:Fortasse ''occisor replicandus'' (in memoriam huius paginae: [[Zodiacus occisor]])? - [[Usor:El Suizo|El Suizo]] 14:40, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:et productio serialis?, vide pagina [[DVD]]--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 08:52, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 138:
::Secundum Cassell's, ''serialis'' non est verbum Latinum (Aevi Aurei). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:21, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Vulnerable species ==
I'd like to direct your attention to [[:Categoria:Vulnerable species|this non-existent category]]. "Categoria:Vulnerable species" is automatically added to a page when putting "VU" (id est ''vulnerabilis'') as the animal's ''Conservationis status''. I don't know how to fix this. Help? :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:09, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:I fixed that specific problem (I believe), but there will be many more like this. This is because the template that we use for taxobox is just copied from the English wiki. Most of the text has been translated into Latin, but certainly not all of it. Therefore, it generates categories like the one you found.
Linea 144:
::OK, thank you! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:20, 2 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Macte! ==
Congratulations, Vicipaedians! The newest results are in, and the Latin wikipedia is ranked 2nd in growth! We are now ranked 40th based on our 1000 pages, up from 46th last month! For the full statistics, click [[:meta:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles|here]]. Let's keep up the good work! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 03:15, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:You're welcome! I couldn't have done it without your programming. We gained 1.39 points. We'd have won first prize for the largest monthly increase too, if only the Bulgarians (1.51) hadn't worked just a wee bit more assiduously. Third place seems to have been 1.00. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:43, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::Congratulations to both of the above for the effort they've put in. A remarkable change in our rating.
:::Gaudeamus omnes ob laborem vestrum; me paenitet meipsum non posse partem maiorem facere.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 08:44, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::I've just raised [[Religio Christiana]] into the 10K class, gaining us 0.03 points, Ioscius is doing the same for [[Leonardus Vincius]], and Andrew is on the verge of raising [[Caseus]] into the 30K class, gaining us 0.05 points. (I trust he's pleased that last month I left that one for him.) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:36, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but I'm not sure exactly what the standards are. Surely we don't get points for the space wasting pinacotheca on the Da Vinci page do we? It says its at 10,700something now. Is that all creditable space?
::::::I think the pinacotheca counts. What doesn't count is hidden text and the interwiki links. Check out Secundus Zephyrus's [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Secundus_Zephyrus/1000_paginae_sizes wordcount estimates], which are proving ''extremely'' useful in this endeavor. Let's hope he can update them every week or so. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:07, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Plenty more that can be done on that page. Wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't whip it up to a 30K without even digging too much, just translating. --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::::That's true of a lot of articles. Unfortunately, I'll still be pressed for time for another week or so. If I hadn't been, I'd probably have done enough to have beaten the Bulgarians last month. :( I still haven't added to my FB page some good photos I took in June. Time is slipping, slipping. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:05, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Glance at [[Caseus]] again. Are we there now? I think so.
::::::::Me too. Macte! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:22, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
=== [[Honglou meng]] ===
I'm also nearly at 30K with [[Honglou meng]] (I hope you don't mind me stealing that one, Iacobe) and nearly at 10K with [[Marcellus Proust]].
:The only thing that might be problematic in [[Honglou meng]] is the erasure of hidden English-language descriptions of numerous characters in the novel, making further expansion in that area difficult, as someone will now have to go back & forth comparing the English text & the Latin text word for word to find passages that can be added. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:46, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, I'm very sorry, I did it -- as you understand -- because they make it more difficult to count! In any case we shouldn't be over-dependent on en:wiki ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source") however good a start it gives us. I'm working from printed, citable sources in expanding this.
:::I think it is above the limit now: agreed?
::::Most probably. We'll know when our friend the Following Wind runs the program again. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:22, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Done! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 18:11, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
=== [[Dellium (Unionis Terra)]] vs. [[Dellium]] ===
I've just added to :en: an interwiki link for our stub [[Dellium (Unionis Terra)]], gaining us another 0.01. We've had the article for more than a year, but none of the bots noticed it, and the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles calculations] have therefore been ignoring it all this time. :( [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:02, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Hm. On scrutinizing [[Dellium (Unionis Terra)]], one sees that it's been set up as an analog of [[:de:Delhi (Unionsterritorium)]], which has ''no link'' to :en: and therefore doesn't figure in the 1000 pages: the article desired for the 1000 pages would probably then be just plain [[Dellium]], which we don't have yet. Nevertheless, I suggest leaving the link at :en: until (a) [[Dellium]] is created, or (b) :la: abandons the :de: scheme in favor of the :en: scheme. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:28, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::There is a similar problem with [[Bruxellae]] vs. [[Regio Bruxellarum Capitis]], though the precise cause may be different: there it is certainly the English article that is out of step with nearly all the others.
== Some help appreciated... ==
Hello. In my enthusiasm, i've transcribed and uploaded a few roman inscriptions. I'm a (not all that accomplished) part-time student of latin, but i'm afraid i got in a little too deep. Anyways, you'd do me a great favor if you'd be kind enough to take a peek.
* [[:File:Early Christian Funerary inscription.jpg]], there's an FLS in there i presume stands for ''filius'', and a few other things i'm not at all sure about. I'd appreciate anyone taking a look at the translation.
::You are mostly correct. I would take it that Maxima is her name (not that she was the greatest servant of Christ: that would be too strong a claim). I cannot comment on the expansion "ANN(us) PL(us) M(inus) XXV D(eposita) P(ridie) VIIII KAL(endae) / IVLIAS" (except that it should be "ANN(os)") but you have translated this expansion correctly. I can't expand "REVC CONS". The length of the marriage should read "ANN(os) VII M(enses) VI". The inscription says specifically that she was "faithful in everything": it's a small thing, but I see no justification for placing "in everything" after "prudent" as in your translation. But I would like someone more familiar with inscriptions to look at this.
::You can find a Latin text (with better expansions) and a German translation [http://deposit.ddb.de/ep/netpub/91/53/58/964585391/_data_dyna/_snap_stand_2001_04_25/Auditorium/LandwAlt/Kap4.htm here] (I did a search for "amicabilis fidelis"). Notice that it isn't "pridie", I knew I didn't like that, it is "d(e)p(osita ante diem) VIII kal(endas) Iulias". And, very important this, the following phrase dates it to the year, it isn't the name of her husband: "Fl(avio) Probo iuniore v(iro) c(larissimo) cons(ule)". Note also that
:::Maybe it shows that the word was then pronounced as if written ''maritu suu.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:39, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::According to [[:en:List of Roman consuls|this]] the date is 525.
:::And ''que'' for ''quae'' probably shows the pronunciation. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:32, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
* [[:File:DM Allia Potestatis.jpg]], a funerary inscription for a freedwoman. I've transcribed it as best i can, but i'm in over my ears trying to (faithfully) translate it. I'd very much appreciate anyone taking a stab at it.
::You can find a full Latin transcription (possibly with normalised spelling: I haven't verified) on pp. 48-51 of [http://www.archive.org/details/pt3anthologialat02buecuoft Carmina Latina Epigraphica] (you have to click on "Read online" and go to page 48: don't use the OCR version, that's full of nonsense as usual). I'm sure there will be English translations on the web as well ... Very useful image, thanks so much for uploading it and telling us about it!
::Yes, [http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-mensopinions47.shtml here for example]. It's probably better to work from this than to re-invent the wheel ...
Tjuus, [[Usor:Kleuske|Kleuske]] (the barbarian) 21:26, 3 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Nice pictures. I'll have a look at the text later (but maybe someone else will get in ahead of me).
:It would be nice to know where the inscriptions are from. I don't see that information just now -- perhaps I've missed something.
::[[:en:Allia Potestas]]--[[Usor:Chris1981|Chris1981]] 12:33, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see. Even more interesting ...
Thanks, so much for all the info. I had no idea the interest and significance of that text were that great, i just wanted to know what it said, as someone obviously had gone through great lengths to write it.
I am planning (now that i'm firmly encouraged to do so ;) ) to upload some more images, since i went slightly mad with a camera in the Museo Epigraphico. 13:28, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:That's good. Tell us and we will probably use these images in Vicipaedia articles!
Fresh:
* [[:File:DM TI Claudius Tiberinus.jpg]], Rather lengthy funerary inscription.
* [[:File:M Cocceius Hilarus.jpg]], ''M Cocceius Hilarus officis suis hic in horreis Nervae amorum habuit maximum Licinia libas coniunx''. An announcement of a common law marriage? (ILS-1627).
* [[:File:DM Octavia et Arbuscula.jpg]] "Terminus est vitae nostrae,..". Funerary poetry...
* [[:File:DM Tiberius Claudius Chryseros.jpg]] just beatiful.
* [[:File:DM Sextus Rufius Achilleus.jpg]] a tombstone for a lovely child. Does anyone know who is depicted? The regalia seem significant, but i can't place it.
These are a bit older, but may be of interest
* [[:File:Tribunus Militum LEG XVIII Funary inscription.JPG]]
* [[:File:Silvanus statue xanten.jpg]]
Salve. [[Usor:Kleuske|Kleuske]] 17:13, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
=== C Aquilius Proculus ===
* [[:File:C Aquilus Proculus.jpg]]. See Tac. Hist. IV-18. and [http://www.livius.org/no-nz/nijmegen/nijmegen-kops_plateau.html www.livius.org].
And there some othe things.
* [[:File:IOM ET GENI LOCI.jpg|Dedication by the signifer of Leg VVV Ulpia Victrix to IOM and the Genius Loci]].
* [[:File:Matronis Aufaniabus.jpg|Dedication to Matronis Aufaniabus]].
* [[:File:Deae Hurstrge.jpg|Dedication to Hurstrge, a local deity, mentions Municipium Batavorum]].
[[Usor:Kleuske|Kleuske]] 22:41, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Nova Categoria pro ludis electronicis ==
Notavi nonnullas paginas de ludis electronicis, ad exemplum [[Battlefield: Bad Company]], [[Halo: Combat Evolved]], [[Fire Emblem]], [[Super Mario 64]], in categoria Categoria: Ludi directe inscripti sunt, quia, cum non computatrales ludi sint sed vero [[consola lusoria|consolarum lusoriarum aliarum]], in categoria categoria: Ludi computatrales inscribi non possunt. Fortasse creare oportet categoriam novam scilicet Categoria: Ludi consolae lusoriae aut Categoria: Ludi electronici. Tamen, hac secunda optione delecta, nonne ipsa categoria: Ludi computatrales fieret subcategoria illius novae categoriae? Opiniones ostendite, s.v.p. . --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 14:03, 4 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Consentio, amice Poece, et categoriam [[:Categoria:Ludi consolarum lusoriarum]] nunc creo. S.t.p. adde paginas idoneas in hanc categoriam.
::Gratias ago! Addam paginas quam celerrime. --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 15:48, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Cos (demus) ==
Nonne paginae [[Cos (demus)]] et [[Cos]] potius in unum confundantur?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:58, 5 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Minime (me suadente) quia sunt demi tres in insula Coo. Iam nexum intervici addidi.
::Res ita est, ut dixisti, praepropere egi. Interim indicia fundamentalia (de tribus demis) in pagina [[Cos]] posui--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 12:23, 6 Augusti 2010 (UTC).
== Torero? ==
Vide paginam [[Michael Bosé]] et [[Lucia Bosé]]. Auxilium peto: "torero" [[Latine]]?
:taurarius sive taurocenta (-ae) (fons: Georges)--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 08:56, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::''Taurarius'' videtur forma naturalis. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:59, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::Maybe it's about time to have a short article on [[tauromachia]]?--[[User:Xaverius|<
::::Certainly, before tauromachia disappears off the face of the earth ... - Once again about the two possible Latin words (taurarius, taurocenta): Attestations seem to bee rare for both: taurarius: Corp. inscr. Lat. 10, 1074; taurocenta: Corp. inscr. Lat. 10, 1044. Of some interest (maybe also for an article on tauromachia) could be the following: [http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/british-archaeological-association-central-commit/the-archaeological-journal-volume-v-41-tir/page-14-the-archaeological-journal-volume-v-41-tir.shtml THE GALLO-ROMAN MONUMENTS OF REIMS. 119]: ''Nos. 24, 25, bull and toreador, a group that reminds us of Spain. The bull, with head lowered, butts at his adversary, who was called Taurarius or Taurocenta, for both names occur in the same inscription (Orelli, No. 2530). The movement of the animal is very similar to what we see on a coin of Thurium ; there a Victory appears flying down from heaven, with a palm branch and crown to reward the conqueror, as in the medallion of Hermes mentioned above. The man holds in his left hand a shield, curved and oval in the lower part ; in his right a short dart with a broad iron head, which would cause a large wound''. --[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 15:18, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Spanish ''torero'' would seem to have evolved from ''taurarius,'' not ''taurocenta.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:25, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::We could have "'''Taurarius''' (CIL X. 1074) aut etiam olim '''taurocenta''' (CIL X. 1044), est tauromachiae peritus, etc etc"--[[User:Xaverius|<
:::::::It really doesn't make any difference to me if a taurarius or a taurocenta kills the bull! In my eyes these are to equally well (or badly) attested possibilities - natural or not, ancestor of a Spanish (torero) or of a rare Portuguese (Taurocenta m.: Aquelle que, entre os antigos, toireava a cavallo) word ...--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:00, 7 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== 1000 paginae: comparing the wikis ==
Meta has a useful page of
:[[Cultura]] (#141); and fifteen other wikis exceed 30K
:[[Infinitas]] (#847); and only :ca: also exceeds 30K
Linea 240:
:Do we know, by chance, how many of the 1001 articles have already been paginae mensis here? Surely we've covered a couple of them.
:I'm agreeing, Jacob, that the list is somewhat lopsided. Of course, though, I've always agreed about that. Guess we just have to play into their game if we want the respect =]
:--[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
This is what I get. 18 of our paginae mensis are on the 1000 pages list (listed with weighted size estimate from [[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes]]):
# [[Cultura]] (148120)
# [[Bellum Civile Americanum]] (108705)
# [[Cuba]] (75097)
# [[Infinitas]] (43540)
# [[Physica electromagnetica]] (36361)
# [[Scacchi]] (30636)
# [[Liber (litterae)]] (22691)
# [[Tellus]] (21962)
# [[Caseus]] (21388) ← Brother Andrew has now boosted this one above 30K. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:07, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
# [[Mathematica]] (19538)
# [[Gaius Iulius Caesar|Caesar]] (18860)
# [[Berolinum]] (17170)
# [[Ecclesia Catholica]] (16882)
# [[Nix]] (15312)
# [[Pulchritudo]] (12886)
# [[Pecunia]] (12082)
# [[Asteroides]] (10266)
# [[Carolus Marx]] (3034) --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::It's gratifying that only two of them are biographies, because (as I've long observed) biographies are a major locus of the POVness inherent in any list of this sort. Designing my own list, I might abolish the biographies, even that of the (evidently) most important human being in all of history: [[:en:Adolf Hitler|Adolf Hitler]]. He already figures in [[:en:Fascism|Fascism]], [[:en:Germany|Germany]], [[:en:Holocaust|Holocaust]], [[:en:Nazi Germany|Nazi Germany]], [[:en:World War II|World War II]], and probably elsewhere. In contrast, neither [[:en:Cambodia|Cambodia]] nor [[:en:Pol Pot|Pol Pot]] makes the list. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:07, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 267:
--[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 20:03, 17 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
I hope no one minds that I moved all this to a dedicated page, it was getting a little busy in the Taberna! --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
== Concerning U.S. Constitution Translation ==
: ''From my talk page'':
I would like to point out, just in case it was overlooked, that Section 7 of the translation leaves the following words out: unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.[[Usor:Andy85719|Andy85719]] 01:05, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:I'm not much of a US Constitution man, so I'll copy this to the Taberna. Continue here!
== Xqbot's typographical judgment ==
Xqbot gratuitously inserts spaces in headings, changing "==Nomen==" to "== Nomen ==." The styleguide in :en: says these spaces are ''optional'' (and indeed, the trend seems to be moving away from using them), but Xqbot evidently thinks they're ''mandatory.'' Would a magistrate inquire? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:52, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::De "and indeed, the trend seems to be moving away from using them": I just examined ten random articles in :en:, and found that seven had no spaces, and three had spaces. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:26, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 281:
::I believe that I can understand Iacobus's feelings, if he's as fond of the "==Nomen==" style as I am fond of the "== Nomen ==" style! I'm ready to opt for making this feature of Xqbot inoperative, on condition that real optionality ensues from this, i.e. that nobody will manually change my edits in this respect. --[[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 20:53, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::How shall we know? Are you going to mark them with a secret copyright notice? ::winkwink:: [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 23:42, 9 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::: Yeah, I have my secret wiles.
:::::So - do we want to ask the pywikipediabot developers to change their bots so that (non)spaces around headings are to be left untouched by bots? This is technically possible, although up to now no wikipedia has opted out of the bots adding the spaces in headings. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:00, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::I insert the spaces in my editing, but I've always felt that it's a matter of no importance. What is being proposed? Have I got to stop inserting the spaces? If a consensus thinks it's an important thing and those who do it must stop it, I won't oppose the consensus. But I might forget :(
:::::::This is no big issue per se but raises some questions of principle. Is Vicipaedia supposed to be a subsection of the English Wiki? Why is it somehow self-evident that we have to ape this pope? When speaking of tendencies, I suggest checking other wikis, too. --[[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 22:29, 10 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Two reasons come to mind: (1) more human computing power has been applied to the English wiki than to any other, and the result accordingly demands more respect; and (2) surely most programmers will agree that ''entia non esse multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.'' Vicipaedia's median article among the 1000 pages has 2114 characters. If such an article has two spaced headings, that's four unneeded spaces, about 0.2 percent of the total. When we toss in other nonfunctioning spaces, like the ones in "br /" and "references /" (imagine each command surrounded by angled brackets), we might get to the point that half of one percent of the entirety of Vicipaedia consists of needless nothing. It's not a large percent, but there's something unhappily unparsimonius about it: it's untidy. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 00:01, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: (1): "...the result accordingly demands more respect". Yes, but not from us only. (2): A couple of years ago, one guy in the English wiki had rolled up his sleeves and begun to remove empty spaces and blank lines in wiki articles. When asked by an adminitrator to stop, he offered a similar Occam's Razorisque argument but obviously failed to convince. --[[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 00:38, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::(1) I've worked quite a lot on en:wiki, as others have too. My view of it is that more "human computing power" (as Iacobus unattractively describes it!)
:::::::::::The idea, perhaps even the phrase, comes from the work of [[Raimundus Kurzweil]], who extrapolates from known rates of change to show that the world's machines will begin to have more computing power than the world's human brains sometime in the 2030s (the exact year was once predicted to be 2037, if I remember rightly, but of course this prediction will be adjusted as more information becomes available). Kurzweil still predicts that a single machine will pass the [[Examen Turing]] by 2029, but I don't see why linked machines couldn't do so sooner. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:14, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::has made it enormously bigger, and of course extremely useful to many people including us, but not demanding of more respect. We know those human computers don't all work in the same direction, and some of them do silly things, and others spend all their time contradicting one another. En:wiki helps as a source; it helps as a demonstration of one way to do things; sometimes it shows us what to avoid.
::::::::::(2) (This argument may contradict the other. Who cares?) If the number of spaces in headings actually mattered to anybody, it would matter to the people who have to find storage space for en:, de: and fr:. They would issue a decree and send out space-eating bots, Wikipedia-wide. It would be easy to do. The fact that they haven't done this suggests that other issues worry them more.
== Canal/Canalis/Fossa ==
Right now [[:en:Canal]] links to [[Fossa]]. But [[Fossa]] links to [[Canalis]]. Should this be changed? The only reason I'm concerned is because Canal is one of the 1000! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 02:26, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== "+" in Morgan ==
What does the "+" after a word in Morgan's list mean? The legend at the top of the list doesn't explain it. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:05, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:My copy of the ''adumbratio'' file says:
::''+ medieval word (first found 700-1400)
::''* modern word (first found since 1400)
::''Parentheses surrounding the above two symbols indicate that the word itself is ancient, but the meaning is first found in the medieval or modern period.
:It looks like the use is similar but the exact boundaries may be different in the ''silva'' file (e.g. "+" being combined with a [s. 18] tag).
== numbers ==
Anyone knowledgeable in this area, feel free to lend a hand. What I have so far:
* [[numerus]] - number
* [[numerale]] - discretiva inter:
** [[systema numerale]] - 1, 2, 3; I, II, III; etc.
** [[nomen numerale]] - one, two, three; unus, duo, tres; etc.
* [[systema numericum]] - [[Systema numericum binarium|binary]], etc.<br>
Anything lacking, anything wrongly labeled? --[[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:Instead of 'numerale' I would prefer 'signum numerale'. You might also want to add '[[cifra]]' (late-latin), which the corresponding article now says is 'zero', but which in more recent latin mathematical publications is used in the sense of 'digit'. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 10:56, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says ''cifra'' is Medieval Latin (from Arabic) and means 'empty, cipher, zero'. According to the OED, the term ''digitus'' was first used in English in the sense of 'each of the numerals below ten' in 1398—246 years before it was used in the sense of 'finger', so that usage goes way back and might as well be kept. Here's the first instance of the word in English: "Eche symple nombre byneth ten is Digitus : and ten is the fyrst Articulus." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:43, 13 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== A formatting error ==
Would some kind programmer (or someone more programmatically knowledgeable than I) look at [[Index generum operarum]] and see if the formatting error in the table can be fixed. Mostly what should be ''the first column'' is printing as a ''block of text'' before the start of the table. The article won't be useful until this problem is solved. Aside from translations of headings, I pasted the commands at the start of the table exactly as they stand in :en:, where the table works fine. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:23, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
: The problem was that the article used {{fn|Section}} but our [[Formula:Section]] worked completely different than [[:en:Template:Section]]. I fixed the problem now. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 19:49, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 328:
Videte etiam progressum ad [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Conventicula vicipaedianorum|Vicipaediae conventicusculum]]! --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 10:45, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== De paginis non annexis ==
Iam sunt 2934 in [[:Categoria:Paginae non annexae]]. Re vera puto permultas esse. Necesse est nobis ad paginas nexus addere!--[[User:Xaverius|<
: Nunc sunt 4332. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:03, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== "Graffiti" ==
Mihi scribere de [[:en:Banksy]] artifice placeat, sed quippe impossibilis facere est sine verbo Latino pro "graffiti." In omnibus dictionariis meis quaesivi et nihil inveni. Aliquis sciatne? Gratias ago! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 20:37, 19 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Nescio si Latina lingua directe verbum quod "graffiti" sensu hodierno significet habeat: "graffito" ab Italiano ''graffiato'' exacte "incisum" vel "scalptum" significat, sed hodie, nisi fallam, nomine "graffiti" Anglicam in linguam defluxo etiam picturae coloribus in muris factae, non modo imagines incisae, indicantur. Forsan uti potes nominibus ''Imagines murales'' vel ''Picturae murales''.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 14:39, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::[[google:inscriptiones+parietariae|Inscriptiones parietariae]], [[google:+pictura+parietaria|pictura parietaria]].
:::Etymologia secundum Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
::::Eng. ''graffito'' = It. dim. of ''graffio'' < ''graffiare'' 'scratch' < ''grafio'' 'stylus' < Lat. ''graphium''
:::"Inscriptiones parietariae" et "pictura parietaria" videntur descriptiones, non vocabula idem declarantia. Fortasse forma quasi-etymologica: ''graphitum,'' ex ''graphium''? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:36, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::Volumus fingere? ;)
:::::Quia [[:en:Wall painting|wall paintings]] non sunt graffiti? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:07, 21 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::Nec est ''movement of the earth'' terrae motus.
::::Forsitan, ad ambiguitatem cum verbo ''[[graphitum]]'' vitandam, et ad etymologiam servandam, pluralitatem linguae Italicae adtinere possimusne? Ergo ''graphita, -orum''. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:30, 22 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Ita, sed melius sit vocabulum et singulare et plurale habere. Ob hanc rationem, redirectionem [[graphitum]] nunc delevi. Igitur, si vis recreare sub hoc sensu, potes. Consentio enim: nobis necesse est distinguere ''graffiti'' et ''wall paintings''; possumus "inscriptiones parietariae" dicere, sicut hic [http://aorist.tripod.com/graffiti.htm], sed denominatio brevior utilis erit.
::::::[[graphitum|Paginam creavi.]] Hanc disputationem movere in disputationem paginae "graphitum" debeam? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:36, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Vide etiam quod alii hac de re iam scripserunt: [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 7#Graffiti]] --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 11:19, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== "Greenhouse gases" ==
Morgan "caldariae herbarum cellae effectum" [http://www.culturaclasica.com/lingualatina/lexicon_latinum_morgan.pdf dat] pro "greenhouse effect," sed de "greenhouse gas" tacet. Quid putatis? Cum enuntiatione ludere possimus, e.g. "gasium caldariae herbarum cellae effecto" (if that even makes sense). [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:21, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Vide quod de 'greenhouse' scriptum est in [[Disputatio:In conservatorio]]. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 23:01, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::... right :D Gratias tibi ago. Ergo "greenhouse" hic sit "solarium," et "greenhouse effect" → "solarii effectum" et "greenhouse gas" → "gasium solarii effecto." Sicne? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 19:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Quid sit "journalism"? ==
Does anybody have a good Latin term for ''journalism,'' the career of those whom Cassell's says to call ''actorum diurnorum scriptorum''? Do we have anything more solidly established than ''diurnalismus''? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:salve, Iacobe. "journalist" meo dictionario datur "diurnarius". Mea consilia sunt ad journalismum: diurnariorum acta, diurna scribenda. diurnalismum difficilem habeo. --[[Usor:Martinus567|Martinus567]] 19:00, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::Also ''diurnariorum ars'' vel ''opus''. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::Amice, habetis [[diurnariorum ars]], si vobs nomen displiceat, libenter mutatote! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
== 44,000 ==
Pagina no. 44 000 fuit (si recte numeravi) [[Contagio sexu transmissa]] a Iacobe creata!
:Woohoo! Milestone after milestone! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:13, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 368:
::Morgan habet:
:::.hom '''''aerosol spray / Spray''''': aerosôlum*; nebulogenum* [Zlotnicki, Lex. Medicum, 1971] | '''''aerosol spray can''''' pyxis sparsoria* (HELF.)
::-- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::My starting point was geography (not the spray) - but of course it is the same word and "thing". I've just found in [[:en:Aerosol|Aerosol]]: "To differentiate suspensions from true solutions, the term sol evolved", so Poecus is right (see above). I used this word in the [[Sahara]] - article
:::So to cover [[:en:aerosol paint]] (spray paint), we could perhaps use ''pigmentum sparsorium'' or ''pigmentum in aerosolo''? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 16:43, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::Something like the latter is probably better here, because ''pigmentum sparsorium'' might be better for use in describing the process used by painters who work by spattering, sprinkling, dripping, and such (rather than by brushing), e.g. [[:en:Jackson Pollock|Jackson Pollock]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:23, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Bot to change sinitur to situs est ==
I found the word sinitur in a page dedicated to an African nation and I used it in a lot of pages. I remember to have check it meaning (been located), but now (thank to Andrew advise) I checked again but I do not find it again in my dictionaries. Perhaps it was my missunderstandig of an other verb. Therefore I ask you please, dear friends, if you can create a bot who will change "sinitur" to "situs est". Thank you--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 19:56, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Cassell's: "'''sino''' . . . ''to place, put down, set down''; '''only used in this sense in the partic. situs.'''" [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:59, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::the same definition and limits in the use in {{Castiglioni}}, but also with the meaning located ''locus in media insula situs''. (other possibilities: collocatus, positus)--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 20:20, 26 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
For such a bot to work, we would need to know the gender of the predicate... if you look [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specialis%3AQuaerere&search=sinitur&go=Ire here], it's pretty tough to get a good algorithm. Sometimes the predicate is ''urbs, vicus, oppidum, pagus,'' I even saw ''lacus''. I think this might have to be fixed by hand =/ I can give a hand.-- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:Furthermore I see a couple legitimate uses of ''sinitur'' as in "to be allowed". -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::In checking these, I encountered one case where Iacobus noster made the change "sita est--->sinitur". Maybe there are others. I generally trust your Latin, Iacobe: is "sinitur" OK after all?
:::Not necessarily! Presumably, however, ''sita est,'' as a perfect form, gives us the sense 'has been placed, has been left, has been located', not exactly 'is placed, is left, is located', and since the present tense is what we'd ordinarily expect in an encyclopedia (as opposed, say, to a report of explorations by an archaeologist or a surveyor), one suspects the grammar should be arranged so as to force the verb into the present tense. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:44, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes, I rather agree with that, and I am sometimes editing these cases so as to end up with a simple participle ("situs -a -um") rather than a full verb. The simple participle, though officially "perfect", feels to me almost timeless.
::::Indeed, just as in English, Latin has forms that are ambiguous between participial adjective + present tense verb and past participle + auxiliary verb — the case of 'situs est' is most likely the former, not the latter.
== 1000 paginae: <s>998</s> 999 down? ==
Unless I've miscounted, 998 of the 1000 pages have been turned into stipulae or more, and the remaining undone topics on the list are [[:en:Journalism|Journalism]] and [[:en:Mass media|Mass media]]. Wouldn't someone like to complete the job? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:12, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:I often take literary topics and I guess these almost qualify ... :) I'll maybe do them tonight if no one else has done them already. Did we agree on a term for "mass media"?
::According to Merriam-Webster, a mass medium is "a medium of communication (as newspapers, radio, or television) that is designed to reach the mass of the people," and this adjective ''mass'' means "of or relating to the mass of the people": so a direct translation of 'mass media' might be something as simple as ''media publica'' ('the people's middles'); but since a mass of people (says Cassell's) is more particularly "''multitudo, vulgus,''" maybe ''media multitudinis'' or ''media vulgi'' or even ''media vulgaria'' would fill the bill. In any case, titles can be changed. ¶ Also, since you love the French so, it's been a little surprising that you haven't leapt at the chance to boost the stubs‡ [[Francia]], [[Lingua Francogallica]], and [[Res Novae Francicae]] above 10K, not least because the job should be easy, each being less than 3K short, and the last being only 2375 short. ::winkwink:: [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:34, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I remember now that we already have a category "[[:Categoria:Media vulgatoria]]".
::::‡Remarks in disputationes show that people over at Mediawiki regard any article shorter than 10K as a stub. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:37, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::I believe, if we are sure our pages are good, we should shrug our shoulders about this. In some cases a proper encyclopedia article is much shorter than 10,000 characters, and Latin should be concise. It is a bad idea to write more than is needed. But of course I agree that the particular topics you mention deserve far more than that! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|Dalby]]</font></font> 11:36, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Wiki articles present any of three levels of detail. (1) Many of ours are verbal hiccups, for biographies giving no more than name, birthdate, deathdate, country of origin, and claim to fame. (2) Some give that much, and then elaborate into a decent summary, either in one big paragraph (as in [[Abrahamus Lincoln]]) or a few shorter ones. (3) A few, after giving that much, go on past 30K characters. For the 1000 paginae, I'd suggest that the bare respectable minimum is level 2, and quietly the past few days I've been bringing pages up to that standard. Of the 1000 paginae, the effects of this effort will be to raise the mean & median, and in a few days, we'll be able to see these results in Meta. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:55, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I was reflecting more generally (because I happened to remember one of the negative comments I saw about la:wiki recently, that many of its articles are "mere stubs"!) As regards the thousand pages, I agree with you whole-heartedly: all these topics (with the exception of two or three very ill-chosen ones) deserve at least 10,000 characters of text -- and your work and encouragement are having a big effect.
:::::::::Actually, to put numbers into the argument, [[Abrahamus Lincoln]] right now has only about 4000 characters, yet it's not unrespectable, and if all 1000 pages covered their subjects with anything like that command, I daresay we should all be pleased. However, look at the ten shortest of these articles ([[Metallurgia]], [[Longitudo]], [[Dialectica]], [[Fossa]], [[Oceanus Antarcticus]], [[Digestio]], [[Pandemia]], [[Bellum civile]], [[Lacus Tanganica]], [[Cogitatio]]) and despair! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:03, 30 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::::::Indeed, but even the big wikis can disappoint. [[:en:Information technology|Information technology]], for example, is way too short (and not well thought-out). If I had my druthers (is that Southernism/ruralism intelligible over there?), I'd cut 10 to 20 percent of the present terms and substitute new ones, but we have to work with the list we've got. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:54, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:At [[diurnariorum ars]] I went with [[media communicationis socialis]] which has plenty of hits. Feel free to change it and the title of [[diurnariorum ars]]. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::OK, it's an attested form, but the first seven Latin hits at Google seem to be from or inspired by official Roman Catholic texts, showing little classical respect; the catechism even uses the medievalism ''moderna'' instead of ''hodierna.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:05, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Okay, they are all accounted for now. Two articles were not linked from the English articles, so the program (mine and the official one) would not have found them. But I've corrected the links now, and I will run it again! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 15:16, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
Linea 411:
: Vaticana dixit ''Diselianus, -a, -um''. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 21:00, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
== Cum paginam scribas: Long or short? ==
Just curious: when you write an article for Vicipaedia, do you go all the way and write an article every bit as long and detailed as, say, the corresponding English Wikipedia article? Or do you write a few sentences or paragraphs and then move on (and why)? (I try to make mine as detailed as the English version, except with many more references) --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 20:58, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
:Different people have different styles. You may not have noticed, but the past two months I've been beefing up our articles on the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have list of 1000 articles every wikipedia should have.] (See Vicipaedia's standing [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles here.]) Hundreds of our articles on the list are nothing more than verbal hiccups, as you can see in Secundus Zephyrus's helpful report [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Secundus_Zephyrus/1000_paginae_sizes here]. Next month will be busy for me, so feel free to take up the slack. Time for this month's improvements to be counted in the next update at Meta will expire in a few hours. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:26, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
::I sometimes write Vicipaedia for fun, and sometimes use it as a notepad for writing that will be published elsewhere. If using it as a notepad, I always (like you) aim to make the links and references better than you could find on English or other wikis, but I don't always extend the text beyond a stub. I'm thinking, if I've made the sources available, I or anyone else could come back to this later and extend it.
:::I don't publish as much as Andrew, so I often write about things that 1) I have a personal curiosity about; or 2) I think would be funny/unexpected at a Latin Wikipedia. [[Ludus patibuli]] is like that. Indeed I purposefully overwrote [[Pong cervisiale]], which is just itself kind of an unexpected article, until it got so big and thorough that it was pagina mensis plausible (if not worthy... =]). Others you write because there are interesting citations in Latin. [[Cannabis]] or [[Scacchi]] for example. These, too, like Andrew said, are a notepad that I can access anytime anywhere. [[Animalium soni]] is like that. I can be teaching/researching in whatever civilized country and have an awesome number of attested Latin animal sounds, anytime I want.
:::I always try in some way to improve upon the English version. If that means a better structure and more length and depth, ok. See [[Infinitas]] for an example of that. At the time of pagina mensis, it was pretty hard to argue that it was better than the english article. The english article has since improved. Sometimes, though, time constraints get the best of you, and this improvement over the english version amounts merely to better description, less pov, or less logorrhea within a single paragraph. All these improvements are subjective, as well. For instance, I think some sections of our [[Napoleo I (imperator Franciae)]] are better than at english, but just because they are more to the point and less wordy. They say about the same thing otherwise. Sadly, I just don't care enough about Napoleon to add the content from the missing sections to really whip that article into the shape that the rest of the english article is in. I have maiores pisces frigendos, if you know what I mean =]
:::Maybe next month, to help out Jacob's humbling and awe-inspiring progress in the 1000 pages battle, I'll come back to the emperor, but I'm working on [[Pinus atomica]] now, this time only because I found some cool pictures on commons. Jacob's work does bring up a point, though, and that's that sometimes you write an article for the sake of the project. Andrew's [[caseus]] started out like that; what kind of wiki doesn't have an article on cheese? Now it's an impressive tome with excellent information in it.
:::All in all, it's a hard question to answer. Mostly I use vicipaedia to get better at Latin, to work in an intellectual community, and to help the cause of living Latin by writing an encyclopaedia in it right under the eyes of anyone who says we cultivate a dead language. May we keep doing it for all the reasons mentioned above. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::: for me it's not a choice. Actually my Latin knowledge is poor and therefore I prefere to create short pages with few sentences hoping also that somebody will add more information and can easily correct them if there are some misstakes--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 18:53, 7 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::Usually I don't like writing ''stipulae'', so I try to add as much information as I can to the pages I'm working at. My favourite topics for the pages usually are about things I'm personally interested in, and looking for additional references and information is for me a way to enlarge my knowledge about them. Sometimes in Vicipaedia's contributions I also find a useful notebook for subjects I really like or I'm working/studying about, for example [[Pirata]] et [[Henricus Morgan]]. I'm a student so I try to check and improve my grammar knowledge by reading and contributing in Latin.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 20:06, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Logo v2 ==
Why this wikipedia logo wasn't switched to verson 2 with interface update? I mean this one:
[[
:Say more? I still see a logo. What should we do/have done? -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:: I see this old logo [[
--[[Usor:Orange-kun|Orange-kun]] 09:02, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Excellent question. I have no idea. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::I think, since our front page was totally redesigned a couple of years ago, Vicipaedia has been using its own locally defined logo rather than the standard one defined for us by Wikimed. Frankly, if I may offer my own humble opinion, the lettering on the current old one is sharper/easier to read than the new san serif one you propose. Do you prefer it? What are the merits?--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 09:53, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::On my screen, the globe on the right looks grayer & less vivid than the globe on the left. Likewise the letters. Also, the use of italics (on the left) makes a bolder statement. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:33, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 435:
:::::::::Please check your "attitude" at the door. That is not the way to speak to colleagues who have just had a new interface suddenly imposed on them without a warning or word of explanation. --[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 00:58, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Which attitude do you talking about? Wikimedia has updated design of its flagman project, all lang sections shall do the same. Relax and take some lessons of good manners.--[[Usor:Orange-kun|Orange-kun]] 08:32, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Just for your information, the problem arose (I think) with the auxiliary "shall", which is best avoided unless one is giving orders. Clearly you intended no impoliteness, Orange-kun, and thank you for the update.
::::::::::::It wasn't an order, it was an advice to keep wikipedia integrity. I didn't say "must". By the way English is not my native language, give me some credit. I didn't made any contribution in this language wiki, since I don't know Latin yet, but I did many in the others. I'm a wikigraphist and I keep images in many wikis. P.S. I have updated logo v.2 increasing space between letters in Vicipaedia mark. I guess it's better now.--[[Usor:Orange-kun|Orange-kun]] 07:24, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree that the newer one's a bit less readable, but it looks much cleaner to me. It's got my vote for sure. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 02:38, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 441:
:::::: Can you do this please? Or find a way to display logo directly from Commons, like in Englsh Wikipedia--[[Usor:Orange-kun|Orange-kun]] 07:26, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Any objections against switching to the new logo, for the sake of visual consistency with the other wikipedias? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:07, 9 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It would appear from the statements above that you have no choice in the matter. After all you will or you shall do it, right?
::::::::You sound a little bit like an ''agent provocateur'', O honoured 208.43.160.10. To show our undying gratitude to Wikimedia for continuing to host our beloved Vicipaedia, if they would like us to switch to the new logo I think we should do it.
::::::::: Well, they are doing a good job. I switched the logo. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:12, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== The new format ==
How do we insert thinspaces now? And how do we abrogate the program that requires ''an extra keystroke'' (answering a yes/no question) when we want to return to the previous screen after having copied the sourcetext into memory or made a tentative edit that we want to abandon? (When did we discuss the introduction of the new format?) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:29, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Iabobus points out an OBVIOUS disadvantage to the new interface. Why in the world are they making people click one MORE time to do something??--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 09:55, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::If I have understood you both correctly ... This is a momentary nuisance but it can be altered. Go to preferences and "mensura capsae verbi" (don't ask why). Uncheck the last checkbox in the list. Save. ... ''Did'' I understand you correctly?
:::::OK, using the monobook skin seems to eliminate the newly imposed burden of answering a yes/no question, but it still doesn't restore the ability to insert a thinspace. Could some of our magistrates find out ''who'' imposed the new format and ask them ''where'' the insert-thinspace key is—and if it's really no longer here, tell them to restore it? (Maybe it's just hiding and I haven't found it yet?) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:56, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::I think the thin space command was made redundant, at least for numbers, by Rolandus. You only have to put a regular space and they get converted automatically when the page is viewed.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 16:25, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Not on my screen they don't! Go to [[CFA]], and see the sentences "Terrestris confinium area CFA circiter 1 900 000 000 agrorum est. Alaska, attiguis CFA a Canada abiuncta, maxima civitas est, 365 000 000 agrorum." I've pasted this here ''from my screen.'' In the ''code'' for that file, the first number (right this minute) has thinspace commands, and the second number doesn't. Both on my screen, ''and when pasted from there to here,'' the space between the first "000" and the second "000" is wider in the number lacking the thinspace command. See? '''000 000''' vs. '''000 000.''' (Take taberna into editing mode if you want to verify this.) So now that we have the new format, how do we insert this hidden thinspace? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:52, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::You can find some answers [[:meta:Vector|here]] and some more [[:usability:Main Page|here]]. A similar change was made on en:wiki some weeks ago.
:::::::As regards our important selves, the change took place without fanfare at 5pm UTC on 1 September -- or, at least, it was supposed to. For the proof see [[:usability:Releases/Default Switch#Phase V Deployment|Phase V Deployment]]. Thought you'd be interested ...
::::::As to the thinspace, someone else will have to help you. Thinspace doesn't display correctly on either of the browsers I use, so I leave it alone.
:::::::Maybe the problem isn't clear to you then. I suppose we can continue to type the characters &-thinsp; (without the hyphen of course; curiously, the nowiki parameter doesn't work with the real code) and they'll continue to appear as such in the code, but we used to have a button that, when clicked, inserted an actual thinspace. I have a vague notion that Rolandus or UV may once have gone through some texts and converted the &-thinsp; codes to actual thinspaces. Certainly groups of long numbers with thinspaces in them are easier to edit without the clutter of repeated instances of &-thinsp;. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:30, 2 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:We didn't. "Volunteers" working with Wikimedia did.-- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::Forgive me if this is not relevant after all. But although the "Vector" skin, slightly improved, seems to have been imposed on us, it is possible to go to one's preferences, choose "Conspectus", and re-select the monobook skin, which is the familiar one. <s>Or maybe click on "Take me back". But I haven't tested that -- not sure yet which way I want to go.</s>
: How to abrogate the program that requires an extra keystroke (answering a yes/no question) when you want to return to the previous screen: As Andrew explained above: Click on [[
: How to insert a thinspace: I do not think that there ever was a button that inserted a thinspace ''character'', only a button that inserted the &<nowiki></nowiki>thinsp; entity.
::There ''was'' such a button, and the result of its action—an actual thinspace!—is visible right now in this very file. Go into editing mode. Now go to the paragraph above that starts "Not on my screen they don't!" Look particularly at these zeros:
Linea 464:
:::'''000 000.'''
::An actual thinspace has been inserted ''in editing mode'' (via that key that used to be at the top of the editing screen) into the middle of the first six zeros, but not into the second six. See how much easier on the eyes that is ''in editing mode'' than '''000 000''' would be? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 01:23, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
: Currently, there still is a thinspace button ''below'' the "Servare hanc rem" button in the edittools box (however, the edittools box has become mostly redundant to the "Characteres speciales" part of the new toolbar, so we may one day discuss about removing the edittools box altogether). If you would really like to return to the old toolbar, you can do so at [[
::I think you mean ''disable'' (rather than ''enable''). When I disable the new format, what seems to be the old toolbar returns, and a thinspace key is indeed there, in its old place—but it inserts the characters that make a thinspace, not (as it used to until this week) an ''actual'' thinspace. To my eyes, the change is a disimprovement. Maybe Vicipaedia had a technological advancement that the Meta people didn't know about (and have now overridden in favor of the earlier technology)? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 01:37, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 479:
== Progressus Augusti 2010 ==
Macte iterum! The official 1000 paginae tabulations are in, and we have grown '''+2.08'''! Our new score is '''19.68''', just under 20.00! We are now ranked '''38th''', up two places from 40th last month! Full statistics apud [[:m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles|Metam]]. <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 00:48, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:Jacob will be dismayed to see that, while we did indeed grow +2.08, the bulgarians grew +2.09! Nonetheless, great work everyone. See what else we can do in September! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::Luck of the draw! The Punjabi wiki, in 88th place, took the first (virtual) prize with 2.20. In many months, 2.08 would have been enough to take the first prize; in some months, our 1.39 for July would have taken first prize; all that was needed in April 2009 was 0.92. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:27, 3 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::The higher one gets in the list, the harder it is to attain the same percentage increase. Or am I wrong there? Whether I'm right or wrong, the steady achievement of the Catalans continues to amaze me. They set a fine example. They got two of those GLAM/BM prizes, as well.
== Font puzzle ==
Can anyone identify the difference between [[Cassis Αgrisiensis]], where Chris1981 created an article just now, and [[Cassis Agrisiensis]], to which I have just moved it? Links to the former require a redirect in order to reach the latter.
: Apparently the redirect does not contain the Latin script capital letter A but some other letter that looks very similar (probably a Greek script capital Alpha). I deleted the unnecessary redirect. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:21, 4 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, UV! I knew there'd be some such explanation but I couldn't pin it down.
== "Shower" as in bath ==
I know that lavacrum means specifically "Bath" as in perhaps bathtub and that balneum means "public bath, bathroom, or bath" but I can't seem to find a word with the modern meaning of "Shower" (bathtub or shower stall with shower nozzle to clean the bather.) There is the word "Pluvia" of course for a rain shower, maybe Pluviatrum or Machina Pluviatria? I rly have no idea, any help is greatly appreciated, thanks
[[Specialis:Conlationes/208.103.66.69|208.103.66.69]] 14:48, 6 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 495:
::.bthr shower tube with head / tubulus mammatus (ALB. I)
::.bthr shower: room with shower / Zimmer mit Dusche: conclave cum pluvio [Eichenseer] (HELF.)
:Balneum pluvium seems about what you were after. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::Gratias tibi ago. Balneum pluvium, bene auditur auribus meis :) [[Specialis:Conlationes/208.103.66.69|208.103.66.69]] 23:07, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Old European names for New World's places ==
Dear Friends, somebody has proposed to change the name of Buenos Aires district [[Montserrat (Buenos Aires)
: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 ...
::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)]], [[Londinium (Kiribati)]], [[Londinium (Ontario)]], [[Mediolanum (Ohium)]], [[Novum Eboracum]], [[Nova Hantonia]], [[Roma (Georgia)]], [[Roma (Ohium)]], 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)
Linea 510:
: There sure is room for improvement. A while ago, I started a glossary [[Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary]] to make translations at least consistent, but surely better translations can be found for some terms. Translations are best added to [[translatewiki:]] directly. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:48, 8 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::It unfortunately looks like one needs to be more wiki savvy than I currently am in order to introduce such changes through [[translatewiki:]].--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 09:39, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::'cookies' you probably can't do anything about, at least not without a source to satisfy VP:NF.
:::The assumption on Mediawiki has been that all language versions ought to have all their system messages in the "target language". This is an ill-informed and discriminatory assumption (I think), because many people all over the world work multilingually and other people should not decide for them that they are wrong.
:::Currently this benighted Mediawiki attitude doesn't matter much to us (though it could one day): currently it only matters to those proposing a new language wikipedia, because this is now one of the hurdles they have to jump.
:::For us (as for the Esperantists), since none of our users have this as their first language, it would really make more sense to ensure that users can easily read all system messages ''in their first language''. We don't actually compute in Latin most of the time, and who has the right to tell us that we ought to? However, since the great majority of our messages already ''are'' in Latin, I'm not recommending changing that now! In some cases, as with "cookie", we surely have to adopt the foreign word.
::::But as soon as we adopt ''equus Troianus'' for ''[[:en:Trojan horse (computing)|Trojan horse]],'' the floodgates will be open, and something like ''crustulum'' for ''[[:en:HTTP Cookie|Cookie]]'' will inevitably pour through! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:28, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, as long as they are in Latin, my preference would be for a kind of Latin that passes a basic test of grammar and style. I don't mind much whether 'cookies' is translated or integrated as a loanword, as long as it is integrated in a way which Latin allows. I am on holidays right now so I cannot check dictionaries, but for some elementary improvements, what about: ''Conventum aperire. Nondum inscriptus es? Hîc te inscribere potes. Crustula electronica (quae Anglice 'cookies') tibi erunt admittenda, si conventum aperire volueris. Nomen usoris: ... Tessera tua: ...''--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 15:00, 10 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 524:
Duae saltem symbolae respirationem tractare videntur, q.s. [[Apparatus respiratorius]] et [[Systema respiratorium]], quae suam quaeque categoriam sibi poscunt. Veron' binis symbolis et categoriis opus est? Ego paene nihil de his rebus scio. Ideo sciscitor. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 16:04, 12 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Questions of idiom: English to Latin ==
=== The syntax of 'a family of small to average lizards'? ===
The locution ''familia parvarum . . . lacertarum'' would seem OK as the basis of the structure, but then what about the phrase left out, 'to average'? Insofar as a word for 'average' (presumably here ''medius, -a, -um'') relates to ''lacertarum,'' it wants to be genitive; but insofar as it relates to ''ad,'' it wants to be accusative. My guess at the moment is ''familia lacertarum a parvis ad medias'' ('family of lizards from small [ones] to average [ones]'), but that seems wordy, and it differs from a similar pattern used with numbers (see query below). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:02, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
: Somehow, ''familia lacertarum a parvis ad medias'' doesn't sound right, mainly because it's rather untypical of Latin to attach prepositional phrases (here, ''a parvis ad medias'') as attributes to nouns. I guess I might say ''familia lacertas et parvas et mediocres complexa'' (without the directional "a X ad Y" scaling). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:22, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::Overnight, in [[Gekkonidae]], usor 151.20.190.83 has changed this to ''familia Squamata magnitudinibus parvis ac mediis'' (representing a ''range,'' remember, as rendered in English as "from small to medium"). This ''parvis ac mediis'' seems to solve the problem, but doesn't it change the meaning? It would certainly do so if the adjectives numbers instead: 'from three to four meters', spelled "3–4 m," would become ''tres ac quattuor metra''—i.e., sometimes three meters, and sometimes four meters, but never any value in between. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:00, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
=== The syntax of 'a lizard 3–4 meters long' ===
It seems almost too easy to copy the English pattern and write ''lacerta 3–4 metra longa,'' but the pattern of ''3–4 metra longa'' seems well attested. How, however, should that be pronounced?—''lacerta '''a''' tribus '''ad''' quattuor metra longa''? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:10, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
: Consider first 'a lizard three meters long'. Two syntactic patterns are available in Latin: either ''lacerta tria metra longa'' or '' lacerta tribus metris longa''. Given this, there's some degree of flexibility in saying 'a lizard 3–4 meters long'. One way to put it would be ''lacerta longa a tribus metris ad quattuor''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:59, 18 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 545:
:::: Caespites minuti 1–2 pollicares rosulati
::::: I'm afraid I'm not able to say this. In my Latin, ''pollicaris'' is ''''one''' thumb thick, long, whatever'.
:::: Arbor 40–70-pedalis
::::: Again, to me, ''pedalis'' suggests ''''one''' foot long, high, ...'. I'd say "Arbor a quadraginta ad septuaginta pedes alta". [Later addition] I forgot the pattern ''bi-, tri-, decempedalis''. Accordingly, ''40-pedalis'' is ''quadragintapedalis''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 13:12, 21 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::: ramos 1–2 gerens
Linea 551:
::: But perhaps I'm the wrong guy to mess around in botanical Latin. Perhaps I'm too orthodox. :-) [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:00, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Meridionalis non est ==
Meridionalis? Habemus 547 paginas in quibus hoc verbum est, sed secundum Castiglioni non est verbum Latinus (australis, meridianus). Vere etiam occidentalis et orientalis non sunt (ad occidentem versus, ad orientem versus). Quod agere debemus, omnes has paginas mutare?--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 21:51, 19 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:meridionalis est verbum Latinum (cf. Firm. math. 2, 12), sed antiquitatis posterioris. Verbis "australis" vel "meridianus" uti melius esset (Ciceroniano quidem).--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:30, 19 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== How many levels deep should taxonomic categorizing go? ==
To the existing categories in certain articles about reptiles, nameless user 151.20.185.82 today has added categories for multiple taxonomic levels. I had thought the tradition was to list (in most cases) only the ''lowest-level'' taxonomic category, so I've just deleted some higher-level ones; but since several more such articles loom, and one doesn't know whether their number might still be increasing, I'm stopping for advice. Perhaps someone skilled at categorizing will compare the recent states of [[Varanidae]] and issue an edict? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:31, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:Since I added this query, 151.20.185.82 has added three more articles with categories using multiple taxonomic levels. Also, I've checked the English, Esperanto, French, German, Italian, and Spanish wikis, and they tend to list only a single category, perhaps the lowest-level one. Likewise Vicipaedia's articles on birds and fishes. Are the reptiles to be special cases? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:41, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 564:
::Thanks, UV. I'll delete the extraneous categories when I get a chance. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
=== Toxicofera ===
User 151.20.185.82 raises an interesting point about Brother Andrew's category [[:Categoria:Toxicofera|Toxicofera]]: "Toxicofera dicuntur nonnulla Squamata, non pisces!" And what is the category referring to? It has no interwiki links. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:36, 20 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:I suppose I must be "Brother Andrew" :) This is a long time ago and the category has dropped from sight till now. I think my intention, meanwhile forgotten, was to group the creatures that we now call (more clearly) "Animalia venenosa". Anyway, not a zoological classification but one relating to human uses/avoidances. As far as that's concerned, the category could be deleted and its contents merged with [[:Categoria:Animalia venenosa]]. If the category name is now being used in a different way, the question of my intention can be dropped: just consider whether it's useful or not. Sorry I can't investigate further -- I'm travelling.
== Aiuto per traduzione latino medievale ==
Buon giorno a tutti e scusate se scrivo in italiano. Sono un contributore della itWiki, specializzato nelle voci di storia istriano/quarnerino/dalmata. Sto preparando un nuovo articolo, dedicato alla [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Presbite/Sandbox2 questione della lingua] a [[Ragusa]] (Dubrovnik): un antico e dibattuto argomento. Ho bisogno di un aiuto per la traduzione più corretta possibile in lingua italiana di un brano in latino medievale. Il brano è il seguente:
Linea 577:
Ho mantenuto la suddivisione delle righe del documento originale, per cui alcune parole risultano spezzate (aren/gerias). Si tratta di una deliberazione del Senato raguseo sulla lingua da adottare nei Consigli della Repubblica. Ringrazio fin da subito chi vorrà aiutarmi.--[[Usor:Presbite|Presbite]] 07:33, 21 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I can't write in Italian! This is a very interesting topic. I see that you already have a translation of the first part of this text in your "sandbox". My impression of the whole text is that all proposals in these consilia had to have a defined counter-proposal before a vote was taken. In this case the initial proposal was set aside before a counter-proposal had been formulated: maybe it was impossible to reach consensus on the form it should take. So there is no vote. Then the matter was discussed in two stages:
:* a proposal to forbid the use of Slavonic [Croatian, I guess] and a counter-proposal not to forbid it. The proposal passed.
:* a proposal to use "Ragusan Latin" only (I see from your sandbox that William of Tyre also refers to the language as "Latin") and a counter-proposal to allow both "Ragusan Latin" and Italian. Again, the proposal passed, and with a larger number of positive votes, though the number of negative votes is not recorded.
:So the result was to exclude both "Slavonic" and Italian from the consilia.
::I'm trying to prepare a first translation to Italian, but I'm not really used to understand medieval latin. In particular, Andrew, can you explain me that ''penam ipp. unius''? Especially that ''ipp.'': in other documents I've also found ''ypp.''. I fancy it stands for such kind of money or coin.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 20:31, 26 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::"penam" would be "poenam" in our spelling (penalty, fine). I don't know what "ipp." is, but I agree it seems likely to be a coin or a sum of money.
Thank you for your kind help and sorry for my poor English. In fact, I know very well the meaning of the text: I need the most accurate translation possible, --[[Usor:Presbite|Presbite]] 16:01, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 604:
::Nessun disturbo. Anzi è stato divertente conoscere questa interessante questione della lingua, di cui prima non sapevo. --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 14:15, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== 45 000 ==
Si recte numeravi, [[Veveyse]], ab anonymo amico Helvetico creata, est pagina no. 45,000!
:Paginas "miliarias" in tabula historica apud "[[Vicipaedia Latina]]" addidi ... si potui repperire. Fortasse alius quis lacunas implere potest?
== Uraquaria? ==
Back in March, our Pantocrator seems to have invented the term [[Uraquaria]] on the basis of [[Paraquaria]], a name that in its own article shows no attestation. According to the Ministry of Tourism, "Uruguay’s name, comes from the Guarani language, and it means 'River of the Painted Birds.'" If this is true, an association with Latin ''aquarius, -a, -um'' (alluding to the contents of the river) is suspect, and the ''-a-'' of ''-aquaria'' probably shouldn't replace the ''-u-'' seen in Spanish ''Uruguay.'' Thoughts? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:12, 27 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:Well, I don't know about the painted birds, but Pantocrator may well have had a good source for Uraquaria. I found some just now via Google and have footnoted one of them on the page.
:I'm not saying it's necessarily the best choice: that should probably be discussed at [[Disputatio:Uraquaria]] if there's a problem.
::Well,posting here attracts more attention and thus opinions and discussions, then you can copy and paste the whole discussion at the Disputatio when it is about to be archived (Just put a note that it was copied from the Taberna.). This happens many times at the English wiki.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 11:34, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:If I remind my Guaranì correct, there are two possibilities for the meaning of Uruguay
Linea 618:
:Anyway, the water approach is correct but I'd rather treat Uruguay as a non-translated eigenname. [[Usor:El Suizo|El Suizo]] 09:11, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::Either way, these etymologies suggest that the indissoluble basis of any Latin word has to be ''urugua-,''  and (respecting the root ''y'' 'aqua') probably even ''uruguai-''; hence a Latin formulation like ''Uruguaia,'' or conceivably its phonetic cousin ''Uruquaia,'' would seem to be in order, and anything like ''Ura-'' would seem so disrepectful of indigenous phonetics & semantics as to be unacceptable. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:23, 29 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::That's a strong view. ''Noli fingere'', however: [[Uraquaria]] is footnoted, so the immediate need is to footnote a preferred alternative.
== "contest" ==
As I recently confessed to Neander, I'm on a bit of a [[syntaxis|syntax]] kick these days, and am keen to (I'd like to say develop but given the paucity of our material on the subject I have to say=>) build our categories on the subject. I have no problem doing this by myself, but certainly welcome any and all input as it's, as Neander said, "ager novalis, (quem nemo) Latino aratro tangere ausus est".
Linea 631:
Both should be beautiful, sage, wise, elegant, interesting, clever, poetic and/or all of the above.
So if you have a good sentence in mind feel free to suggest it. I'll take the best 2. Gratias! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:One entry in each class:
:* Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere. Tacitus, ''Annales'' 1.1.
::Sadly OSV, Andrew. Otherwise a great pick! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:* Patricia gens Claudia (fuit enim et alia plebeia, nec potentia minor nec dignitate) orta est ex Regillis oppido Sabinorum. Suetonius, "Tiberius" 1.1.
:
:::Start simple? ''Ego reges eieci.'' Cic. ad Her. 4.53.66. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:58, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Duplicated in a sequel: ''Ego reges eieci, vos tyrannos introducitis.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:58, 28 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
== Pronunciation ==
Salvete! My friend asked me to help her with Latin pronunciations for a play she is in. She told me that the character is a well-educated (think doctor or lawyer) man in 1600 France. I know there are many different types, but what kind of Latin pronunciation would be most accurate for this location and time period? Any advice would me much appreciated. Gratias vobis ago! <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 04:22, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:SZ's question is very interesting. Among our friends maybe [[Usor:ThbdGrrd]] would have an immediate answer. Of course you also have to think how French was pronounced around 1600 -- certainly in a very different way from today.
::Yes it's too interesting a question. I would suggest reading a few texts from the area and the time period in both Latin and French but beyond that haven't a clue how to help. When I speak Latin I try to be understood grammatically, and I'm usually teaching students who are either Americans or studying in America, so I've never really had to worry about accent problems. That said, I have a few Latin speaking Austrian and German friends, whom I understand with greater difficulty. Good luck!-- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::By 1600 in France, ''ae'' and ''oe'' had been [e] for more than a thousand years. Also, ''ce'' and ''ci'' had been [se] and [si], respectively, since the thirteenth century—none of this Italianate ''excelsis'' = "eggshell sees" business. The ''g'' in ''ge'' & ''gi'' was "softened." Vowels before two or more consonants were shortened (e.g., ''cĕnsus,'' not the classical ''cēnsus''), and vowels in open syllables were lengthened (e.g., ''tēnet,'' not the classical ''tĕnet''). Since the English pronunciation of Latin after 1066 came under heavy influence from Norman usage, W. Sydney Allen's chapter "The pronunciation of Latin in England" is pertinent to your question. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:07, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
::::Gratias, Iacobe! That is enough information to get her in the ballpark. She doesn't need it to be perfectly historically accurate, but I think now I can get it pretty close. I will check out the reading, too.<font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 21:31, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 649:
::In real classical Latin, say in Cicero's time, "th" was surely pronounced as in 'a<u>t h</u>ome'. The sound [θ] as in 'thick' was unknown in classical Latin (and maybe had not yet developed in Greek at that date either). I expect someone will come along and contradict me ...
::Many modern speakers say Aθena, however. It's your choice, Jondel! [Andrew Dalby]
:::I like to straddle the fence on this and v. I can't bring myself to use a full on American style w, it just makes the language sound bizarre and weak in my American head. I also realize that a full v isn't exactly historical. So I go for an in between sound, sort of like I do for th. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::"The [w] value of consonantal ''u'' must be assumed for the classical period" (Allen, p. 42). Allen (p. 41) cites several examples, including that of the seller of Caunean figs, whose cry "''Cauneas!''" Crassus should have heeded as an omen: "''Caue ne eas!''"—a pun hardly possible if ''v'' weren't a semivowel like [w]. Allen says the first evidence of ''v'' = [v] comes from the first century, but v = [w] lasted in some quarters at least into the fifth. Surely in seventeenth-century France, ''v'' was [v]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:20, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::By ''not exactly historical'', I was making a gross understatement. On an academic level I certainly realize the nature of consonantal v in classical times. Just on a personal level, hard to get it into the idiolect. Also might have to do with growing up hearing Italian.
:::::Of course the first evidence of ''v'' = [b] is from the first century too. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:You want to look at [[:en:Latin regional pronunciation|Latin regional pronunciation]], which has a French column.
== Font rendering ==
I would be glad if others would glance at the two tables at [[Birmania#Subdivisiones Birmaniae]]. I find that my browser cannot read Burmese script in Wikipedia pages unless fonts are specified (as is done by Formula:My, which I have just copied from en:wiki). I have altered the Burmese script in the ''third column'' of each table so that I can now read it. I have left alone the Burmese in the ''fifth column'' (no political undertones intended), with the result that I still cannot read it. The question is, have I helped or harmed other people's ability to see this script? Please tell me, after my edit, whether you can or cannot see Burmese script (a) in the third column, (b) in the fifth column of those two tables. Thanks!
:I read/see next to nothing in that page. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
== quando utimur praeterito inperfecto, quando quidem perfecto praesenti? ==
salvete! Ecce questio cognoscibilis: quibus differunt duo tempora praeterita? --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 06:43, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:"SEQUENCE OF TENSES. In complex sentences, a primary tense in the main clause is followed by the Present or Perfect Subjunctive in the dependent clause; a secondary tense by the Imperfect or Pluperfect (§ 483)." is perhaps what you are looking for...there are special rules depending on the type of clause. Read more here: [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0001:part%3D2:section%3D13] (See links at left under "syntax of the verb")--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 08:56, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::Mos Vicipaedianus est tempore praesenti aut perfecto in definitionibus lemmatis uti. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:08, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== Google Translate - Latin ==
I don't know if anyone's seen this yet: http://translate.google.com/translate_t#en|la
It's bad in several ways.
:Hey Muke, take a look at [[Disputatio:Google]] and the recent edit by Ornil in the page itself. What do you make of the blog entry? -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:It's great news for Latin nonetheless. Google Translate's new languages always begin with horrible quality and then improve over time. At the moment it's most useful for skimming through old Latin documents if you aren't very good at Latin yet. The "contribute a better translation" button to suggest a better translation than the one being given is one of the ways this happens. [[Usor:Mithridates|Mithridates]] 22:52, 1 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
=== Some new "translation" utility? ===
I've noted three cases in the last three days of new pages (of more-than-stub length) containing utter nonsense masquerading as Latin, all three from different sources on different subjects. It makes me wonder if somebody (such as Google) is newly promoting a translation utility? If that's the case, we won't be the only sufferers. Anyway, please keep an eye on new pages from unknown sources, and be prepared to add <nowiki>{{Non latine}}</nowiki> if the text is too bad or too boring to be worth saving. Pages with this template are deleted in due course; but pages that aren't marked in this way can survive for some time, and they do our reputation no good at all.
:Google would indeed be the culprit.
::For the record, to see how the program is doing, I tried a few phrases that popped into mind:
:::Roses are red, violets are blue.
Linea 703:
::::Aprili quod Whan cum in soote shoures droghte perced Martii ad me roote.
::They're all fails, though a few get some phrases right. The program's English-to-Latin lexicon is incomplete (it doesn't recognize ''blue,'' dialect spellings, and premodern spellings) and mixed up (it thinks cotton has something to do with saints), and its Latin syntax is strange. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:39, 3 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::It's Google, so it doesn't use a lexicon per se — my understanding is that its system is mostly corpus-based, not dictionary-based.
::::This morning, it renders "Tyger, tyger, burning bright, in the forests of the night" as ''Tyger, tyger ardens lucida Silva nocte.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:21, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::::To be fair, even humans find it difficult to translate poetry ...
::::::True, but a decent program would have no more trouble with the "literal" sense of that passage (from Blake) than for:
:::::::Paper, paper, turning tight, in the dances of the kite.
Linea 720:
::::::It correctly matched the repetitions at the beginning, but then why did it cut the comma after the second ''catfish''? It missed the syntactic parallels of the rest of the passage: each of its translations of the middle part is syntactically unique: ''conversus stricta'' (two past participles, not in agreement with each other), ''respiciens bonum'' (present participle + noun maybe accusative), ''demisso'' (past participle, dative or ablative), ''nantes frigida'' (present participle plural + adjective singular not in agreement unless ''catfish'' is neuter, but it isn't; see [[Siluriformes]]), ''nuper cursu'' (adverb + supine ablative). ''Vada gurgitis'' shows that the program recognizes that the last word might want to be in the genitive, but it doesn't know that ''milvus, nemus, brabilla,'' and ''publica'' aren't in the genitive. Let's wait for the beta version! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:38, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== 1000 paginae: October ==
:[[Dinosauria]] nunc >10K = +0.03. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:18, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:[[Mille et una noctes]] nunc >10K = +0.03. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:51, 5 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 733:
::Hoc mense, media{{dubsig}} ([[Anglice]] ''means'') et medianos (''medians'') mille paginarum augebamus. Media ab initio Decembris 2009 ad initium Octobris 2010 fuerunt 4781, 4816, 4829, 4877, 4899, 4918, 4937, 4983, 5154, 5642, 5704. Mediani simul fuerunt 1960, 1973, 1982, 1984, 2016, 2066, 2087, 2071, 2114, 2595, 2602. Novos numeros mox viderimus. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:16, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== ''Suverenitas'' : a new instance of a ''ringum''-like word ? ==
The article [[Suverenitas]], for its only attested source, cites page 144 of the pdf of Morgan's lexicon, but that page is devoted to terms for ''mail,'' and no attestation of this "suverenitas" is jumping out at me there. Am I missing it? or what? And if it's there, is its source reliable & respectable? ¶ The etymology given in the article derives the term from a French noun supposedly derived from a French adjective supposedly derived from the Latin adjective ''superanus.'' Wouldn't that make the expected Latin back-formation ''superanitas'' instead? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:13, 4 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, suverenitas is a bad word, and one might think Morgan would have reached the same conclusion. I have a feeling someone tried to insert this word in Vicipaedia once before ...
::OK, it ''does'' occur in that glossary (with a warning asterisk, and some alternatives) on p. 114, so that was just a typo in the reference. Here's the entry:
::* .gvt sovereign / superanus+ | sovereignty summa (rerum) potestas; summum imperium; suprematia* [Latham]; suverenitas* [s.18] (HELF.)
::Whether we choose this word is now up to us, however. I'll copy this discussion to [[Disputatio:Suverenitas]]: please continue there.
== technical question ==
Linea 747:
:I don't know if Latin admits ''in+acc'' for stative expressions, expecially omitting the verb. However, even if it does, it would be very rare, and the reader would rather understand the much more common sense of movement, so ''lupus in speculum'' -> ''lupus in speculum (adiit, venit etc...)'', the wolf comes to the mirror. There is a case which admits ''in+acc'' whit ''esse'', ''adesse'', in the sense of ''esse in conspectum'', to appear to and be in sight.<br>E.G. Nec prius surrexisse ac militibus in conspectum fuisse, quam, etc., Suet. Aug. 16<br>But in this case ''conspectum'' requires the idea of "to come to sight", so perhaps it could be partially correct to say ''Lupus adest in speculum'', the wolf has come to sight in the mirror. However, it would keep having a sense of movement, not state. --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 20:25, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thanks for contribution,I found the rule on my dictionary,it says :in+acc ...1.3)stative expressions ,"with stative verbs (esse,habere,adesse) that include the idea of a previous action\movement(real or imaginary)
again thanks a lot.--[[Usor:LupusInFabula|LupusInFabula]] 22:29, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::I think that the rule you have just cited indicates that in speculum would mean that the wolf has just arrived at the mirror in the sense of walking or crashing into it, or that the wolf suddenly appears as an image in the mirror (when just a moment before it wasn't), or that the wolf is visible inside the mirror after just having jumped into it physically in some science fiction/fantasy sense. It would not simply mean in english "the wolf is physically inside the mirror" or "the wolf is visible in the mirror" which is the phrase that Iacobus took it to mean. So you'd better specify in what context and with what specific meaning you want this strange sentence to be taken in.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 11:17, 7 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 753:
''It is just a curiosity to know if it is ,theoretically,possibile,(applying the 1.3 rule )to built a sentence like it (the sentence is not important),using in+acc instead of in+abl.Although it is strange,irregular etc etc way. It s all here.''
We need 3 thing :1) stative expression ("he is under control of someone") 2) stative verb ("is" ,it should work as stative verb) 3) "simply" the idea of a previous action/movement real or immaginary ( he is
Now I think that i should write the verb because otherwise the rule 1.3 is not more valid.If i omit the verb I should use in+abl.But the rule 1.3 says nothing about the verb omission,so maybe it is an unwritten rule ( something as a mutual
:It's difficult to see any purpose to this discussion, Lupus, unless it's to prove to some authority that when they told you you had made a mistake, you hadn't ''really''! Maybe simpler just to say ''yes, OK, I was wrong''. Anyway, that's just my guess, so forgive me if I too have made a mistake.
:I cannot imagine a world in which "Lupus in fabulam", without a longer explanation around it, would make sense to a Latin speaker.
[[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] got it.
In alicuius potestatem esse---> from lt to english---> you simply translate it as "to be under control of someone",but the sens is "it has
:But a false one, I think. With "in + acc." you expect a verb implying motion, or at least change. "lupus in speculum est" would be imprecise or faulty Latin (I think) because "est" is not a verb of motion. "In alicuius potestatem esse" would be imprecise or faulty Latin (I think) because "esse" is not a verb implying change. But I expect someone will quote a text showing I'm wrong :)
:Anyway, note my last sentence: whatever you think of the rest, that sentence is important. Latin is not a constructed language in which you work out how to speak by building your own interpretation of what the grammar books allow. If you do that, you're taking the wrong route. Latin is a language with a wonderful written corpus, and if you want to write or speak it, you must also read. That way, you learn to speak or write the way that Latin authors did. Sometimes, in the process, you will find that the grammar books haven't got it quite right yet!
::But even then, Andrew, just because an author wrote it once doesn't make it great. A quick look around the internet will see that very fluent native speakers make what we grammar sticklers think of as egregious mistakes. If we said that, just because an author once wrote "your stupid" when they should have written "you're", we were licensed to propagate the same usage, I think we could agree that that, besides being silly, would also be dangerous to the future of the language. Finding one usage of "lupus in speculum est" to contradict the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions, even) of usages of ''in + abl... '' -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::That's a good point, mi Iosci. I was lulled into ignoring it because the ''Latin'' writers that I'm talking about wrote, and were eventually put into print, before the instant-Internet instant-publication age. So Livy himself, and his secretaries and his booksellers and his early-modern editors, have eliminated grammatical errors of that kind before they could reach the texts we read. Today there's often no safety net, and even if there appears to be, the secretaries and booksellers aren't always as skilled as they were. Just an hour ago I received and read through a newly published article by me whose last word is (in my view) a painful solecism, one that I could never have typed. When a copy-editor changes ''all right'' to ''alright'', one can only exclaim: O tempora! O mores!
:::::Hey, don't blame me! It's not a change I'd make. However, if you expressed an objection, the press may rightly have asked why, if preserving ''all right'' is an issue of supreme importance to you, you submitted the text to a house that prefers ''alright.'' Submitting anything for publication can seem like making a pact with the devil. ;) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:16, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::::An even better point, if I may make an example of your error. We humans are fallible beings: How many books have you written, Andrew? Surely you know that its alright and not all right, but that time, who knows, slip of the mind, a passing distraction, the odd glass of wine, anything, and you make a very small mistake. On the one hand o tempora o mores, on the other hand, we humans type and write some half a billion words in a lifetime. Can we really be expected to quality control every single one of them? (I forgive you, even if the copy-editor doesn't ;]) We see some of the medieval writings that weren't as rigorously edited as Livy's writings were, and there are a lot more errors of the sort. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::It's like I tell my students of English in Slovenia all the time, when they ask a question like, "Can I say "The car of John", instead of "John's car"?". This mirrors their own expression ''avto '''od Johna'''''. Now of course English grammar ''permits'' the construction "The car of John". Using it, however, would be a blind and stubborn resistance to the fact, and this is I think what Andrew is getting at at the end of his last post, that we simply don't talk like that, grammatical as it may be.
:::Well, but if it's grammatical, native speakers must be able to contrive its use in sentences that native speakers would accept. How about this one? "When you said it was 'John's car', did you mean it was the car of John the butcher or John the baker?" Or of course anything relating to "the reign of John XXIII" and "the head of John the Baptist." Not to mention (while we're waxing religious) "the Gospel of John." Further, we might consider "the [http://www.cityofstjohn.org/ City of St. John]" and "the [http://www.cityofjohnday.com/ City of John Day]." Google turns up "the township of John John," evidently part of Port of Spain, Trinidad. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::The bottom line is that if you were to turn in the sentence "Lupus in speculum est." in school, Latin teachers would not consider the fanciful theory outlined above; they will mark it wrong. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
I understood, the grammar permits it, but it s wrong,thanks.--[[Usor:LupusInFabula|LupusInFabula]] 10:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:OK, but I guess I would have to add (and this applies also to the example "the car of John") the grammar permits it because it's an imperfect or incomplete grammar. An ideally good grammar would tell you it's wrong, and why it's wrong. I have had the same experience as Ioscius (I teach English to French people sometimes) and I have not been able to explain, in all cases, where one uses the possessive and where one uses the preposition "of". A grammar that equates them is seriously faulty, but who will write us the grammar we need?
::See my examples of "of John" above. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:11, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
only to fuel the debate, other examples that i found: "prope in custodiam habitus" (Livy), "aliquem in potestatem habere"(Sallust),"adesse in senatum" (Cicero),also with others verbs besides esse habere adesse,"in carcerem asservari"(Livy),"velut in anciem stare"(Livy),my dictionary only cites the author.--[[Usor:LupusInFabula|LupusInFabula]] 12:56, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 784:
* ''mihi in conspectu est lupus'' 'there's a wolf before my eyes'
vs
* ''mihi in conspectum est lupus'' (= ''mihi in conspectum vènit lupus'') 'a wolf has appeared to my eyes'
Also Cicero uses this kind of construction every now and then. Those who know Greek will remember that the perfect tense of verbs of motion is stative in character. I'd compare "''esse in aliquam rem'' with the Greek {{Polytonic|ἥκω εἰς}} construction, in which {{polytonic|ἥκω}} means both 'I have arrived' and 'I am (present)'. The answer to Lupus's "technical" question appears to be: yes. But perhaps the construction is too idiomatic for everyday use in our Vicipaedia. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 13:53, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for the excellent & instructive examples. Bear in mind, however, that we weren't asked about the pattern of 'a wolf has appeared to my eyes': we were asked about the pattern of 'there's a wolf before my eyes'—and traveling from the English, you can't ordinarily get to the former from the latter. As three native speakers of English have said or implied above, you'd need more context to send you in that direction. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:12, 8 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 791:
== [[IEEE]] - ''Notable Committees and their formats'' ==
Dear Friends I would you translate this sentence ''Notable Committees and their formats'' in the page [[IEEE]]--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 09:13, 9 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:All your help is appreciated. In the meantime, let me change
=== Collegium ===
In line with the IEEE article, please examine the prevailing use of <font color=blue>"college"</font> in English, which seems to retain the original meaning:'self-governing association of scholars ', 'an organized association of persons having certain powers and rights, and performing certain duties or engaged in a particular pursuit: ', 'a body of clergy living together on a foundation for religious service or similar activity. '. I would'nt be surprised if similar meanings are found in the cognates of Romance and other languges. What I'm saying is, can we use COLLEGIVM to mean a non-profit organization of scholars or priests or senior professionals to establish standards or to advance a purpose or studies. Gratias ago --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 02:10, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 799:
== Index siglarum ordinum ecclesiae catholicae ==
Petitio a magistratibus: Falso "Index siglorum ..." ad [[Index siglarum ordinum ecclesiae catholicae]] movi. Aliquis paginam removeat quaeso!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 10:40, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Pro tempore non removi quia paginae aliquae ibi adnectantur -- vide [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Index_siglorum_ordinum_ecclesiae_catholicae indicem]. Oportet eas paginas antea emendare.
::Non intellego, quid sit faciendum: Oportetne nexus ad indicem siglorum (...) delere, antequam index siglarum (...) denuo ad indicem siglorum (...) removeri potest?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 17:45, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::Nunc removi. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 17:56, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::::Date veniam -- male intellexi. Gratias ago, Alex.
:::::Gratio ago et ego!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 20:32, 10 Octobris 2010 (UTC)<br>
Latinitate classica, verbum ''siglorum'' non est falsum. Secundum Cassell's, 'mark of abbreviation' = "''sigla'' (''-orum,'' plur.: legal t. t.)" (hoc est ''terminus technicus legitimus''). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== Regressus sum! ==
Me paenitet, quia e vicipaedia nostra aberat in tempore aestivale. Nunc in Oxonia, me conlationes iterum continenter agere possum. --[[User:Xaverius|<
:Yay! Et nobis psalles quoque? :) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:16, 12 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::Ita vero, vobis psallam si vobis placet! --[[User:Xaverius|<
:::Yay! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== De Antiquitate Posteriore ==
Fortasse conor paginam perambiciosam scribere de [[Antiquitas Posterior|Antiquitate Posteriore]]. Quid vos putatis? Fortasse pagina brevior optima esse.--[[User:Xaverius|<
== circuli aut comitatus Romaniae ==
Helveticus Montanus has just done a lot of work in establishing all the Romanian "județe" ([[Formula:Circuli Romaniae]]. He calls them "circuli" (which, of course, is a possible way to translate județ). When scrutinizing Latin sources, you'll find, that provinces in Transsylvania and Banat traditionally were called "comitatus", smaller entities "districtus". I put a list of all Transsilvanian "comitatus" on the page [[Transsilvania]] some months ago. For all of these provinces there are Latin attestions, so, at first sight, I would prefer to use them instead of the modern (Romanian) name. I've found no Latin appellations for provinces outside the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. If the northern and western provinces are called "comitatus", of course all the others should be called so, too. On the other hand, it might be adequate to the changed political order (and changed boundaries of the provinces) to call provinces in Transsilvania "comitatus" till 1918, provinces in Romania afte 1918 "circuli". What do you think about it?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 09:02, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, and the word "județ" is often translated "county" in English, which is the exact equivalent of "comitatus". But the point about the big change in 1918 is interesting. Romanian was not a fully official language in older Transilvania, and I don't know whether this word "județ" was used by Romanian speakers in Transilvania before 1918! Do you know?
:Also it would be good to know (I don't know) how big are the differences between the pre-1918 provinces and the modern județe in that region. If they are largely the same, we would probably have one article for each and we should prefer the attested Latin name. But if they are largely different, we would have separate articles for the pre-1918 provinces, and it might then be best, as you suggest, to use a different word for the later județe, as Helveticus has done.
::I don't know, how Romanians called their provinces in the south and east (in pre-WWI-Romania), in Transsylvania they were called comitatul, for example Comitatul Alba de Jos (in Latin: Comitatus Albensis, Albensis inferior, Albensis Transylvanensis); after WWI they changed the name (județ). Hungarians called provinces "vármegye", now "megye" (omitting vár, which is castle). The area of some provinces did not change so much, that of others considerably, some provinces were suppressed, others newly created.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:10, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
Omnibus rite perpensis indicem comitatuum Regni Hungariae (non statim, mox tamen) afferam, qui multis modis sive cum comitatibus Hungariae hodiernae sive cum circulis Romaniae (necnon Croatiae etc.) necti potest.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:08, 18 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Quod modo efficere coepi (vide [[Index comitatuum Regni Hungariae]])--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 21:26, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
== nomina nobilium ==
Is there any rule how to deal with titles of nobility? If you look, for example, at [[Formula:Archiepiscopi Salisburgenses]], sometimes titles are attached to the name (Paris comes de Lodron), sometimes omitted (Hieronymus de Colloredo). The German Wikipedia omitts them, not so the English one (cf. [[Hieronymus de Colloredo]]!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 09:18, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:Grammatically, titles function as appositives. In formal style, they ''follow'' the personal name; hence "Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen" (in Latin, ''Elizabeth Dei Gratia Anglicae Franciae et Hiberniae Regina'') and "John Doe, Knight" (in the standard Latin pattern, ''Ioannes Doe, Eques,'' with or without the comma) and "Barack Obama, President of the United States of America." In less formal style, they ''precede,'' usually with a great deal of shortening; hence "Queen Elizabeth" and "Sir John Doe" and "President Obama." Both the cited wikis may be erring here: perhaps the English one shouldn't use nonformal style, and the German one shouldn't omit definitive social information. Some of these points of style may be set, not just by custom, but by law, and they may change over the course of a life. Consider Arthur Wesley, whom almost everybody after 1815 has known only as "the (first) Duke of Wellington," or just plain "Wellington." But see how his name & title changed during his life:<small>
Linea 851:
::Nor does any of the other wikis! (by the way, thank you for your awe-inspiring broad answer!)--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 11:24, 17 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::Interesting discussion. Some people on the English wiki are obsessed by titles and forms of address: other wikis (and other encyclopedias) generally omit most of this stuff. I think we should omit most of it too. The really important rule is to give the name by which people were or are best known.
:::As to being given a long-posthumous promotion, this is part of someone's fame or "fortuna", like being made a saint. I would say it usually belongs at the end of the article, and not usually in the lemma.
::::Uh-oh. By the same logic (the criterion of contemporary relations [the world of the living person], rather than latter-day ones [the reception in later times]), you might want to uphold the idea (discussed elsewhere) that Copernicus's writings occurred in Borussia, not Polonia! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:39, 24 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::::I don't see the parallel ... but, anyway, I had already commented at [[Disputatio:De revolutionibus orbium coelestium]].
== 2010 Fundraising Is Almost Here ==
[[
I'm contacting you as I am currently looking for translators who are willing to contribute to this project by helping translate and localize messages into different languages and suggesting messages that would appeal to your readers on the Fundraising Meta Page. We've started the setup on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010 meta] for both [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Messages banner submission], [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing statistical analysis], and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Committee grouping volunteers together].<br>Use the talk pages on meta, talk to your local communities, talk to others, talk to us, and add your feedback to the proposed messages as well! I look forward to working with you during this year's fundraiser. If someone could translate this message I would really appreciate it so that everyone is able to understand our goals and contribute to this year's campaign.<br> [[Usor:Klyman|Klyman]] 18:52, 21 Octobris 2010 (UTC)<!-- EdwardsBot 0020 -->
== Forcellini ==
See [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 4#Forcellini]]. I have just found out via this [http://sandra-ramosmaldonado.blogspot.com/p/forcellini-ltl.html Latin blog] that Forcellini's ''Lexicon Totius Latinitatis'' (big dictionary of Latin of all periods) is available for download free at "Documenta Catholica Omnia". You seem to have to go to [http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/25_90_1688-1768-_Forcellini_Aeg.html this page] and click on each of the volumes in turn. Then, on the html pages that you reach, you can right-click on the pdf link and "save as ..." to get the pdf files. They take a long time to download -- these were huge volumes -- but at least the pdf of the Preface (139 pages) opens correctly when downloaded. I'll try the first full volume now.
:On the other hand, when I download vol. 1, pages 1-747 appear to be OK, but pages 748-932 are unreadable. It would be interesting to know if others get the same result.
::I cannot say unreadable, but indeed difficult to read, many letters are not very clearly visible. It needs some guesswork. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 20:04, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks very much for that response, Alex. When I tried, those pages were completely blank. So I will now try again :)
== "[[:en:Hate group|Hate group]]" ==
Linea 872:
== Vide s.v.p. ... ==
... [[Disputatio Categoriae:Actores Civitatum Foederatarum origine ethnica digesti]] et opinionem addite si placet.
== Does anyone object? ==
Linea 879:
But the entries will all be stubs at first, and since I would be adding so many at once, I don't want to do this if others think it's a bad idea. They will at first have a brief, generalised biography; a bibliography with links to online sources and exact references to Berve, PW and other standard references where relevant; and categories. I can do all this by developing the entries semi-automatically on a word processor. My next tasks, once the pages are added, would be to go through them adding interwiki links and making sure that dates of birth and death are stated when known. Berve mentions these vital dates but he doesn't highlight them, otherwise I could add them in the initial semi-automatic process.
Any comments?
: No objections, just two questions:
Linea 886:
: Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:50, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, UV, that's a good idea about the initial birth and death categories. I could then, as you say, exchange them for specific categories as I find the exact details.
::I will look into the PW question -- that's a good idea too! It is predictable, I believe, whether the article will exist at s:de: or not: the volumes are alphabetical and it largely depends whether the particular volume has gone out of copyright yet. Verifying that detail would be a second step -- but an easy one -- after I finish extracting the material from Berve, before I shape it into wiki pages. Good ...
:The precedent has certainly already been set, I think, Andrew. I am reaching a point in my philosophy about Vicipaedia that I think we need, above all, well linked, well sourced articles written in good Latin. We use bots to help us out all over the place. If bots help us generate material which meets the above criteria, as long as it has a chance of getting filled out at some point in the future (certainly a relative measure) I think I am ok with it.
:Of course I would balk at something of the sort that would add several thousand articles; the original proposition of adding tens of thousands of asteroids sat and sits very uneasily with me.
:Anyway, you don't have an objection from me.
:-- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::Thank you very much for that response, Iosci: I know you've been uneasy about such large scale additions so I was wondering what you would say :) OK, my preparations are continuing.
:::I have added the first 15. They are all listed (alongside a few already-existing pages) in [[:Categoria:Alexandri Magni coaevi]]. If anyone wants to suggest any general changes, please do! In a few days I will continue with the much larger remaining group.
:::I am still working on adding Greek names, interwiki links and (as UV suggests above) links to de:wikisource.
== transcription of arabic ==
Linea 899:
I wanted to start on a glossarium of Islamic terms, but I'm not sure how I should deal with the transcription of Arabic, if at all. Do I Latinise it or leave it as is, i.e. :
* '''Wājib (واجب)''': officium, necessaria res. -- [Anon]
:I'm sorry no one replied till now. The answer is that we do not attempt to make Arabic words look more like Latin. We use the most-approved international transcription, and you will find any extra symbols you need in the character selection box, below the edit window, under the subheading DMG. It looks like a good idea to format entries as you have done in this example, the transcription followed by the original Arabic script.
:If the word has previously appeared in Latin form in a published work, we would also cite that existing Latin form (with a reference), and our encyclopedia entry for the word would then most likely be at that Latin spelling. In your glossary, however, it would probably be best to be systematic and to put the standard DMG transcription in leading position.
::In your example, the Arabic term for 'duty' would therefore be transliterated Wāǧib (DMG) rather than Wājib. The exception are titles of articles, where diacritics are usually omitted (in this case: 'Wagib').--[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 17:48, 4 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 908:
== De categoriis ==
Omnibus suadeo paginam nuper rescriptam [[Vicipaedia:De categoriis]] legere, Latinitatem corrigere, et in paginam disputationis melioramenta proponere.
:Seriem categoriarum de rebus in litteris descriptis et de rebus in arte visuali figuratis incipere volo. Paucas subcategorias nuper creatas vides apud [[:Categoria:Res figuratae]] et [[:Categoria:Res litterariae]]. Qui velit commendare aut vituperare aut modificationes suggerere, hic faciat! Si placet, post disputationes, pergo; a principio paginas in categoria [[:Categoria:Tabulae pictae]] ad categorias novas de re picta addere volo.
::Recte cogitas, Andrew. Proinde, quantumlibet intersit, quaererem si iam habeamus categoriam de signis interpunctionis similibusque in scriptione, aut si necesse sit instituere: ad exemplum habeo paginam [[Parenthesis]], quam nulla in categoria addere potui nisi <nowiki>[[Categoria:Litterae]]</nowiki>.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 16:47, 8 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Hmm. Possumus dicere simpliciter [[:Categoria:Interpunctiones]] aut [[:Categoria:Interpuncta]] (Cicero his verbis pluralibus usus est) ... aut quid?
:::Interdum eam paginam ad [[:Categoria:Scripturae]] addidi, quia "Categoria:Litterae" pro ''litteris humanioribus'' vel ''belles-lettres'' utimur.
::::Consentio de optionibus quas proponis. Simile nomen possumus imponere categoriae cum plures paginas ei ascribendas creabimus. Gratias ago!--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 15:57, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 919:
Salvete! Egomet non invenio translationem vocis Anglicae 'Zionism', inde opem vestram peto; nomen nascitur de nomine montis Sion, cuius nomen in Vulgata semper legere quimus, Italiane ob has causas est ''sionismus''. At Hebraice <nowiki>'[ts]'</nowiki> dictum est. quid opinamini? --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 13:06, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:queso? --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 21:40, 3 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::Re vera nescio, sed debemus orthographia iam divulgata uti, si sit. Fortasse apud ''[http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/index.php Ephemeris]''?
:::[[usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] pro certo scit. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::Romani pro certo cum "s" scripsissent. Credo etiam verbum apud Egger inveni, qui procul dubio usus fuerit s littera, sed non in promptu habeo. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] 12:50, 5 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 926:
[[Calixtus Ottomanus]] non potest esse Bāyezīd II ! Calixtus Ottomanus in imagine capellae Piccolomini ecclesiae cathedralis Saenae Iuliae depictus est; Papam Pium II adit baptismum appetens! Quis plus scit de isto iuvene?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 20:23, 4 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Hmm, fortasse recte distinguis, Utilo. Secundum librum in pagina nostra (et Theodisca) citatum, Bajezid Osman = Calixtus Ottomanus; sed an Bajezid Osman = Bajezid II, dubito. Si igitur nexum in nostra pagina imprimis, vides duas citationes: (1) illum librum (2) commentationem quae asseverat Bajezid Osman anno 1496 mortuum. Alibi in vicipaediis lego "[[:es:Ejército Negro de Hungría|el pretendiente al trono turco Bayezid Callixtus Ottomanus]]"; sed Bajezid II non fuit praetendens, fuit sultanus.
::Solutionem in "Lexikon des Mittelalters" inveni, vide [[Calixtus Ottomanus]]--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 13:45, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
I've put a picture from Wikimedia-Commons on the page [[Calixtus Ottomanus]] (source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cathedral_%28Siena%29_-_Piccolomini_Library) - why doesn't it work (appear)?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 21:15, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Solved :) Fasciculus = File.
::Gratias tibi ago. Oculorum caligine affectus eram!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:22, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== Lingua Latina vivit (nuntia officialia) ==
Nobody told us at the time, but (according to a secondary source) the Wikimedia Language Subcommittee decided in early March 2010 that Latin is a living language (vide [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-March/057142.html hic]). Gaudeamus!
:Hercle!--[[User:Xaverius|<
:::A very sensible decision, I think! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
== Maomethes II / Mahometus ==
Vidi [[Disputatio:Mehmet Murat Ildan]]; nihilominus omnes Maomethes etc. in [[Mahometus (nomen)|Mahometus]] mutare velim (Cf. etiam [[:en:Muhammad (name)]]. Quid de hoc dicitis?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:03, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Per me licet, amice Utilo, sed quid dicunt Arabistae?
== Domus Gladiatorum Collapse in Pompeii? ==
could we write an article about it?
:Damnatio! Relicta archaelogica certe sunt fragilia, et maxime haec res me paenitet. Nomen paginae idoneum sit [[Ruina domus Gladiatoriae Pompeiana]]?--[[User:Xaverius|<
it could be a good name,but i cant help beacause my Latin is a little rusty.....Maximus Maximus Maximus!--[[Usor:LupusInFabula|LupusInFabula]] 23:27, 12 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Maybe ''ruina domus gladiatoriae Pompeianae'' is a little better. Not sure why the G is capitalized in your version, Xavi, and I'd also wager that Pompeiana should agree with gladiatorial house not with ruin. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::On the capital G, I was thinking in other examples of Pompeii, like the Villa of the Mysteries, the House of the Surgeon... but then it would need to be Domus Gladiatoria. On Pompeiana agreing with domus rather than with ruin, I agree with you; it looks better.--[[User:Xaverius|<
:::According to [http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6A519X20101107 Reuters] (and other news sources) the House of the Gladiators is officially called in Latin "Schola Armaturarum Iuventus Pompeiani". So I guess we should use that name?
::::Rock and roll! -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::::Then an article on [[Schola Armaturarum Iuventus Pompeiani]] is needed before we write about its collapse.--[[User:Xaverius|<
some news [http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2010/11/17/la-giornata-in-pillole-bondi-sfiducia-in-calendario-il-29-novembre/ Panorama - Culture Minister will be sacked?]
[http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2010/11/11/pompei-87-segnalazioni-prima-del-crollo/ Panorama - Pompeii, 87 reports before the collapse]--[[Usor:LupusInFabula|LupusInFabula]] 11:07, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 982:
:Cassell's says ''diversity'' classically can be ''diversitas.'' The easiest term for beginners would therefore be ''biodiversitas,'' but of course that construction may not be more stylish than ''diversitas/variantia/variatio biologica.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 02:20, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification - I didn't know 'diversitas' could be used that way. :) I think calling the page 'diversitas biologica' (the more 'classical' form), but still mentioning 'biodiversitas' (the newer form, as such) and having the redirect, would be best. What do you think? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 02:42, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::"biodiversitas" does have the strike against it that it's mixing Greek and Latin.
::::Yeah, there are already quite a few links to the 'biodiversitas' page. Thanks for the input, anyway; I'll create "[[diversitas biologica]]" right now =] [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:14, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== De dissentione a Dacoromano creata ==
Forsitan, mi vicipaediani, incipientem disputationem legistis. Eam resumpsi in commentario Jondeli nostro:
(Ex disputatione Jondelis)
:::Mi Jondel. Video [[Disputatio_Usoris:Dandv|disputationem tuam cum viro Dacoromanico]] de linguis francis, et nunc te scribo Latine, ne nos intellegat. Si vero is malefactor est, non licet nobis cum eo disputare. Iam Rafael noster hanc rem dixit in pagina disputationis sua. Si iste vir solum insidias creare vult, melior est si nos omnes eum ignoremus. Et tandem, video hanc rem et memoro [[Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Legatio_nostra#Proposal_to_close_Latin_Wikipedia|rem a SeaHen disputatam]]. Consilium meum tibi, simpliciter eum neglege.--[[User:Xaverius|<
::::Etiam, iste vir expectat argumentos creare (ut videmus in pagina sua: ''[[Usor:Dandv|Please direct '''flak''' to My English userpage]]''). Certe si no malefactor, puto eum discordiae et dissentionis cultorem esse.--[[User:Xaverius|<
Si commentaria aut conlationes nocivas is non scribet, simpliciter nihil facere debemus (ut credo). Ignoremus commentarium primum de [[Disputatio_Usoris:Rafaelgarcia#In_Latin.2C_about..._Platics|Plasticis]]. Si iterum commentaria discordantia scribe melius sit si eum neglegemus, consentitisne?--[[User:Xaverius|<
:Probe dicis, amice. Quod quaeritur non semper respondendumst. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:09, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Ita. Qualibet, conor ne talis malefactoribus disputem. Re SeaHane valde fruor et mihi cura est sed non auctoritates latinitates esse bene scio. Novam latinam creare non velim sed progrediendum nobis est.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 16:58, 11 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== Comitatus in CFA ==
To the extent that common usage is relevant: the names of counties in the United States include the word ''County.'' If one says that one is traveling to ''Fulton,'' the destination is a city or something else, not (under most conceivable circumstances) a county. If one intends to travel to the county, one ordinarily says one is traveling to ''Fulton County.'' Atlanta is the county seat, not of ''Fulton,'' but of ''Fulton County.'' In other words, it seems strange to see ''Fulton (comitatus Georgiae)'' instead of ''Fulton Comitatus (Georgiae).'' If you check on how the English wikipedia names U.S. counties, you'll see the necessity of the word ''county.'' In the cited case, the lemma is '''[[:en:Fulton County, Georgia|Fulton County, Georgia]],''' not '''Fulton (county of Georgia).''' Of course Latin usage may differ, but this is mentioned in case people are unaware of how bizarre the proposed Latin nomenclature sounds to native speakers of American English. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:41, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Here we have as example for a possible Latin rendition: [http://www.altelandkarten.de/stock/alte%20landkarte/19628/Comitatus%20Glatz%20Authore%20Jona%20Sculteto/Blaeu.shtmlhttp://www.altelandkarten.de/stock/alte%20landkarte/19628/Comitatus%20Glatz%20Authore%20Jona%20Sculteto/Blaeu.shtml Comitatus Glatz (''Grafschaft Glatz'')] and [http://www.alte-landkarten.de/stock/alte%20landkarte/20807/Nassovia%20Comitatus/Mercator.shtml Nassovia comitatus (''Grafschaft Nassau'')]. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 10:43, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 005:
::de: Das '''Jeff Davis County''' ist ein County im Bundesstaat Georgia.
::eo: '''Kantono Jeff Davis''' . . . estas kantono de la usona ŝtato Georgio.
::es: El '''condado de Jeff Davis''' . . .
::fr: Le '''comté de Jeff Davis''' est un comté de Géorgie,
::it: La '''Contea di Jeff Davis''' . . . è una contea dello stato della Georgia.
Linea 1 014:
::vi: '''Quận Jeff Davis''' là một quận trong tiểu bang Georgia.
:Evidently, the name '''Jeff Davis (comitatus Georgiae)''' is Just Plain Wrong. Likewise the names of the other U.S. counties that have begun to burgeon here in the the past few days. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:37, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::So what's the best form to choose? Of the two alternative word orders given by Alex above, I think I would usually prefer "comitatus Jeff Davis" in a sentence of text (because the Latin word handily indicates the meaning of the barbaric name that follows) but "[[Jeff Davis Comitatus (Georgia)]]" as a page name, because it's easier in searching to begin with the most distinct part of the name. But maybe there are other considerations I'm not aware of.
:: could you please let me know what is the better solution '''comitatus Jeff Davis''' or '''Jeff Davis comitatus (Georgia)''' now I'll go on with Texas and if possible I would avoid to have to correct later also all these pages. I choose this kind of pages and will go on with them because of a lack of time. Thank you for your help and, Andrew, for your judgment (see below) --[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 10:34, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:: of course if you decide a new nomenclature, this must be applied for all the pages. Actually when I created the pages on the American Counties and other for other nations, I took as model the already existing pages for example [[Bergomum (provincia)]] and so on and also in Italian nobody
:::If we would follow the policy of attestation then this would be [http://books.google.de/books?id=qS4-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA597&lpg=PA597&dq=Provincia+Bergomensis&source=bl&ots=RYNpOHo-x3&sig=chIa92d_Q9Qybb1yrYbh--kLq5w&hl=de&ei=i8zmTLLfI8fGswbqsNSxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Provincia%20Bergomensis&f=false Provincia Bergomensis]. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 19:18, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Hic habemus comitatus Britannicos et Anglos: http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/recint2.htm qui sunt:
* Kerriensis Comitatus: County of Kerry, Ireland.
* Regis Comitatus: King's County, Ireland.
* Somertunensis Comitatus
--[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 19:12, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree with these examples of Alex's that it is better to use a capital C for Comitatus, as part of the name. So let's suggest [[Jeff Davis Comitatus (Georgia)]]. I also suggest that you wait a little before changing all the pages you've done already, in case a bot can make the changes for you :)
:Is there some reason why some titles include the state name and others don't, seemingly at random? By the way, I think the old style was fine e.g. 'X (county of Texas)' would seem OK in English. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 15:01, 20 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::It might be interesting to know which dialect of English you speak, since it's a dialect in which locutions like "[[Palm Beach]] is located at the extreme eastern boundary of [[Palm Beach Comitatus|Palm Beach]]" and "[[Austin (Texia)|Austin]] and [[Austin Comitatus (Texia)|Austin]] are different jurisdictions" make sense. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:31, 20 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 032:
::::Anyway that does not answer my question. At English Wiki, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_in_Georgia here], all counties have the state in their page title. I do not understand why he has been creating some pages with and some without the state name. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 17:42, 20 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::I inserted the State name only when there's more than a County of the same name according to de.wikipedia. If somebody wishes to set the State's name in all the Counties ok, please correct the existing formulas (perhaps with a bot) or prepare the ones and create the new pages. --[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 22:35, 21 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::I guessed that would be your reason. By the usual rules of Wikipedias, pagenames should not include unnecessary explanations (i.e. explanations not needed for disambiguation) so I think you made the correct decision.
:::OK. Being that these are places in America, though, I would rather follow English wikipedia than the German, and that there's no reason not to have a uniform style for all counties in the USA. English uses '[Name] County, [State]' but we translate the word 'County' and don't use commas like that. All in all I would say the old version '[Name] (comitatus [State (genitive)])' works better, although in the definition of course '[Name] Comitatus' is fine.[[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 03:09, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::For pagenames I can live with either [A] '''Jeff Davis (comitatus Georgiae)''' or [b] '''Jeff Davis Comitatus (Georgia)''', and I think those familiar with North American usage should give us the ruling. Let's decide, then Helveticus can get on with his very useful work.
:::::I'm rather surprised there has been so much discussion about this. Iacobus was right at the beginning. '''Jeff Davis Comitatus''' translates the American usage of '''Jeff Davis County'''. I'm for the second of Andrew's options. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
::::::OK, well, '''option B''' agrees with Alex's examples and Iacobus's comment, Helveticus is ready to accept it, I have no objection, and Ioscius opts for it too. It makes for simple transfer of names from North American English. I'm closing this so that the work can continue.
::::::OK, well, '''option B''' I agree with Andrew, Alex, Ioscius and I thank you all for your precious help --[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 22:35, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== Help from programmers wanted! ==
Could a generous programmer adapt en's "Infobox nrhp" to Vicipaedia's requirements? It's found in the article [[Terra Rubra]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:37, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Has anyone started on this? If not, I'm willing to take up the challenge, having already converted an infobox or two already. Let me know. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 23:40, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::As far as I'm concerned, I'll be very happy if you go ahead, Robert!
:::OK, it's mostly there: {{tl|Infobox NRHP}}. You could probably use it right now, but all the formula names and parameters are still English -- for example, the name should probably be Capsa NRHP. I'm still working on debugging some of the unit conversion formulas at {{tl|Convert}}. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 18:35, 23 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== An urgent translation request ==
[[
:I do not know whether it works but here [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Appeal/la] I started to translate so everybody could continue. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 10:18, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::+[[m:Fundraising 2010/Core messages/la]] --[[Specialis:Conlationes/84.167.75.7|84.167.75.7]] 11:44, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 053:
:::::It looks ok to me. Well done, Alex, a remarkable translation in my opinion.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 22:18, 14 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::: A good and inventive translation, indeed! I made some (what I regard as) stylistic improvements. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 06:11, 15 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Nice work!
== Horrible Caesar statue ==
It has been on our pagina prima for too long I think. If we are many times defending that we are a Latin wiki and not a ''Roman'' wiki, isn't the extremely Baroque and non-Classical statue of Caesar we display in our front page quite misleading?--[[User:Xaverius|<
:Well, my issue is, it is a bit monotonous/boring to see the same thing again and again. Even if the Ceaser statue is not classical, he is representative of the Latin language, like Shakespeare to
::I was for the she-wolf at first. =] -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::Don’t like it either. If we’re gonna have a logo at all, maybe something that says „we’re not ''that'' nerdy“. Because that was the first thing I thought when I heard about the la WP “a Latin Wikipedia? My God, those guys must be the nerds of nerds.”--[[Usor:Chris1981|Chris1981]] 13:08, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::Hoc quidem sumus =] -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::::A menacing [http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/mortaljive/LatinLesson.jpg Roman soldier]? More seriously: a medieval writer such as [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trithemius.jpg Trithemius] or maybe something with [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Braulio_de_Zaragoza_e_Isidoro_de_Sevilla.jpg Isidore of Seville] in it? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 18:31, 23 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::That's a pretty accurate depiction of a laptop in the Isidore pic. Also warning of potential injury caused by bad posture.
== Ottomanidae vs. Ottomannidae ==
I have been working a bit on [[Ottomannidae]]: We have [[Imperium Ottomanicum]] but [[Ottomannidae]] (which somebody - long ago - moved from Ottomanidae - why?), we have [[Calixtus Ottomanus]] and [[Ottomanus I]] etc. (Ottomanus - at least according Google - prevails over Ottomannus 3:1), and just some minutes ago we've got "sultanus Ottomannus" (by [[usor:Xaverius|Xaverius]] attached to the sultans' names). I'd prefer to have one spelling for one name (Ottomanus / Ottomanicus / Ottomanidae) - Is there any argument or preference for one of the two versions (-n- / -nn-)?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 18:00, 15 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with Xaverius about the bracketed addition: "(sultanus OttomaXicus)" is what we would usually do, not "(Imperium OttomaXicum)". But about the spelling I don't know. The word ''Ottoman(n)idae'' seems very rare on Google, mainly coming from Vicipaedia mirrors. Is there some other name we should be using? Did [[Demetrius Cantemir|Dimitrie Cantemir]] have a word for it?
:Yes, I see he did: adj. Otomanicus. OK, when I try the spelling-variants of that adjective on Google, I get by far the best result for ''Ottomanicus'': -tt- but -n-. On that basis (sorry, Xavi) we should probably change again. But wait and see what others think ...
::Cantemir has Othmanus, Othmanicus, Othmanidae; some other sources I've already put into the annotations of [[Ottomanus I]]--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 18:27, 15 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Mea culpa. Then I guess it's a matter of creating new redirects to X (sultanus Ottomanicus), correcting those leading to X (sultanus Ottomannicus) and lastly deleting the X (sultanus Ottomannicus) redirects, on the base of the typo.--[[User:Xaverius|<
::::Maybe, but no immediately. Cantemir's spelling seems to reflect original -th- best, cf. [[:de:Uthman]]: Arabic "Uthman" (IPA: ʕuθˈmaːn; عثمان; Uthmān) becomes Ottoman and Turkish "Osman", because there is no -th- in that language.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 19:21, 15 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::Habemus etiam [[Imperium Ottomanicum]], ubi Ottomanus dicitur Osman, et [[Imperium Othomanum]] motum ad [[Ottomannidae]].--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 10:24, 16 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::Hercle! Necesse est nobis consensum inire de nomine. Etiam, pagias recte dirigamus:
::::::# Imperium Ot(h/t)oman(n)icum pro civitate
::::::# Ot(h/t)oman(n)idae pro domu rengatrice
::::::--[[User:Xaverius|<
:::::::Varietas "Othmanus/Othmanicus/Othmanidae" a Cantemire adhibita mihi anteferenda esse videtur (si re vera maxime propinqua nomini originali est
::::::::Egomet non Arabista malo versionem "Ottomanus", quia est proximissima ad versiones linguarum Romanicaurm, et deinde fortasse, proximissima ad versionem latinam praeferendam.--[[User:Xaverius|<
:::::::Adhuc de varietate optima in dubio sum, tamen argumentum tuum mihi ad persuadendum accomodatum esse videtur. Si alii sententiam non proferant ("qui tacet consentire videtur"), quaeso, mutes paginas pertinentes ad Ottomanus etc.! Postea etiam de ipso nomine (Othmanus / Ottomanus) paginam variis nexibus additis faciam.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 13:04, 20 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Nescio, num pagina X(sultanus Ottomannicus) simpliciter ad X(sultanus Ottomanicus) movenda sit an aliud difficilius sit opus?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:36, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== 50.000 paginae ==
Mi vicipaedistae, in the same way that we get a higher ranking by having lengthy articles on the 1000 paginae, do we get a higher ranking if we reach the 50.000 pages? If so, would it be worth the effort of writting 3.237 pages by a given date? Or setting up such a goal is not really going to give us any promotion?
[[Fasciculus:40000 euskal wikipedia.png|thumb|40.000th article commemorative eu:wiki logo... should we have something similar?]]
I was considering that maybe trying to fit the 50.000th article with the 9th anniversary (May) may well not work, because we will surely write 3237 pages before that. But should we prepare soemthing special for the 50.000th page? I know that eu:wiki had a new logo designed for the 40.000th page, and surely we could have one designed for our very own achievement, don't you think so?
And on a final note. In order to commemorate the 10th anniversary of our own very vici (May 2012)... Should we try and aim at the 60.000 pages? or being overambitious, 75.000?--[[User:Xaverius|<
:Well, I know in the past other wikis have made the executive decision not to look at us any differently when we reach certain milestones. For example, refer to [[:en:Template talk:Wikipedia languages/Archive 5#Vicip.C3.A6dia|this discussion]]. It seems that most other wikis (and probably the world in general) judge us on quality, not on quantity, so maybe we should focus more on that? Perhaps for our anniversary we should shoot for a goal on the 1000 paginae rankings instead of number of articles. <font face="Courier New">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</font> 06:34, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::I agree with Zephyrus. Maybe we should set personal goals for a 10th anniversary: something like going back and having a look at our own edit histories and cleaning up some of our own past articles. I strongly agree that we should strive for quality, not quantity. We get quantitative improvements every day, but not (even close to) all of it is of an acceptable - let alone excellent - quality. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
:::I agree with that. In fact -- this will warm the cockles of your heart, Iosci -- although I am working on those 800 contemporaries of Alexander the Great (see above), I have decided not to create the pages on Vicipaedia until they include more facts about each person.
:::Articles don't have to be long. Short articles are quite OK, so long as they give the basic facts, link to other relevant pages, and link onwards to further information. We have to do this -- and keep on improving our Latinity -- if we are to persuade outside commentators that Vicipaedia is any good. If we slow down new article creation, and (just as you suggest) look over, improve, add information and links to our own past articles, we could have something to boast about for the 9th and 10th anniversaries.
::::Quantity definitely has one advantage I can think of: Latinity. For instance, I was recently writing on biodiversity and wanted to refer to coral reefs. If we had an article (even a lil stub) on that, I'd have known what to call them, and I could've linked to it. Since the translation was in none of my dictionaries, I simply made something up from the translations I could find for 'reef' and the adjective form of 'coral' and put a dubsig beside it. Thus further degrading the Latinity of the article :]
::::It's not that I disagree with anything that's been said above, of course! It's just one way even stubs can be really useful. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:24, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::True. For the same reason it's good that Helveticus (I think) is giving us so many pages on counties and administrative divisions: it gets the names on to Vicipaedia, it flushes out potential disputes about the names (see above!), meaning we can afterwards use the names more reliably in other articles and categories.
::::::Oh, I support that idea, 100%. Stubs are incredibly useful. If I want to look up a term, I search for it in English, and it shows up in Latin as long as there is a Latin page with an English interwiki. The same would hold for native speakers of other languages. Without a stub, I have to guess at a translation (or ask and wait... and wait... and wait... for a consensus), and a search doesn't exactly help. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 23:52, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with Robert each page, also a stub, makes me easier to prepare a new one, see for example [[A che punto è la notte]] where I used [[bomba]], [[cereus]] etc.--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 21:45, 22 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::In addition to the point made by Robert, stubs are also useful in the opposite direction: they guide us ''from'' our home Vicipaedia to the additional information that's available on others. I'm happy to withdraw my suggestion (somewhere above) that we slow down new article creation. I believe that some other wikis (the Swedish one, for example?) aimed for quantity until they reached 150,000 (just imagine that!) and ''then'' focused on quality. But I myself will perhaps focus rather more on making articles longer. I think :)
:::::::::In general, I agree with stubs being useful, because the more blue links in an artivle the better. Especially in our paginae mensis, blue links are always useful: a pagina mensis in which most of its links are red I feel deosn't give the best of impressions. But then again, maybe we could follow the example of the Swedish wiki and set us a goal of quantity for a near future and then work on quality. Maybe?--[[User:Xaverius|<
== [[Nomina litterarum abecedarii Latini|Nomina litterarum]] ==
Anonymous user 151.20.189.134 (FYI: not yours truly in disguise!) seems to have been correcting the pronunciation of the Latin names of the letters, but Andrew has been reverting the changes. According to W. Sidney Allen, ''Vox Latina'' (1988:114), the Latin names of the letters of the alphabet are ''a, be, ce, de, e, ef, ge, ha, i, ca, el, em, en, o, pe, cu, er, es, te, u, ex'' (or ''ix''). Thus, for example, not ''enne,'' but ''en'' ; not ''esse,'' but ''es.'' One wonders where the erroneous (and now restored) pronunciations came from. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:48, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Good challenge. See [[Disputatio Usoris:151.20.189.134|my note to the anonym]]: what the pronunciations want is a source, which you could now supply!
:To answer your question, I think I put those other pronunciations there, and I ''had'' a source, which, contra Allen, argued that the names of these letters are to be reconstructed from the names in most modern Romance languages. But I didn't cite my source. Can I find it? Or will you get your Allen citations in there first? Who cares about ''Beaujolais Nouveau'', with a race like this in progress?
::OK, I have my source, and it probably defeats Allen because it doesn't just argue from comparative philology (which would just be one against another, really, and there are few to beat Allen) but from a recently discovered papyrus -- Allen could not have known it -- which actually gives the Latin names of the letters, spelt out in Greek script by a Greek learner of Latin. I'll cite this now. Might even write an article about the papyrus.
:::Allen dismissed the evidence of the Antinoe papyrus, which he called "an alternative system" (p. 114). He said the names quoted above are Varronian, accepted & promulgated by Priscian. He doesn't base his determination on comparative philology, though he recognizes that the Antinoe system "reminds one of Italian ''effe, elle,'' Spanish ''efe, ele,'' etc." In any case, ''ιφφε, ιλλε, ιμμε, ιννε, ιρρε, ισσε'' are a subset of consonants, the "continuants," evidence about which doesn't necessarily apply to other consonants. If reconstruction from modern languages were pertinent, the ''English'' names might want to be factored in, to the extent that they too, like the French, Italian, and Spanish names, descend from the old Roman ones. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:35, 18 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::Fine, I didn't realise he had commented on this system. If he regards them as alternatives, then I suggest you add in his versions too, with a reference in each case: I don't have ''Vox Latina'' so I can't do this. It'll be easy to copy the reference from page to page, as I did. As you say, we are only talking here about a subset of consonants: you could, if you wanted, add the Vox Latina reference to all the other pages as well (and check whether the pronunciations they already give agree with his conclusions).
::::It would be good to know the exact references to Varro and Priscian: does he supply them? These would improve the page [[Nomina litterarum abecedarii Latini]] which I started yesterday -- in fact you may want to rewrite it totally.
::::Interesting point about the English letter names. I can't see any etymologies for them in ''Oxford dictionary of English etymology'', nor any separate page about them on en:wiki. I would guess, judging by ''aitch'', that they are borrowed from medieval French, in which case, as you say, they do contribute evidence for proto-Romance.
== comprehensoria > vallis communitas? ==
Linea 1 127:
:::Hurray! Thank you very much :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:14, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
== KLiberae ==
I've just made a mistake: Please delete [[KLiberae]]! I wanted to move [[Provinciae Liberae]] to [[Officii Liberi]], nothing more! Thank You!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 14:46, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Acta est deletio.--[[User:Xaverius|<
:Quid significat locutio ''Officii Liberi'' ? Anglice videtur significare 'Duty's Children'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:05, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::Sorry, obviously not my day! This is a kind of older Italian, I am afraid (instead of Uffizi liberi), cf. [http://hls-dhs-dss.ch/ghh/?ghhterm=Freie%20%C4mter,%20n,pl GLOSSARIUM HELVETIAE HISTORICUM]: German: Freie Ämter; French: Bailliages libres; Offices libres, Francs-baillages; Italian: Baliaggi liberi, Officii liberi;
::::Perhaps this is not entirely relevant, but just to note that "liberi" is a good translation for children only in a roman context, where it means "free-born children" as opposed to "slave-children". Outside Roman context, better to use filii.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/208.43.160.10|208.43.160.10]] 13:43, 26 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::: Are you really suggesting that ''liberi'' 'children' should be entirely banned from post-Roman latinity? [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 16:04, 26 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::For children with reference to the relationship, yes, I think "liberi" imples that they are freeborn: but then, by our standards, all children are or ought to be freeborn, so in the modern context I don't see what would be wrong with using the word. "Filii" on the other hand carries the slight implication that they are male, or that the males count first: I know this may not be technically true, but it remains true by implication since the word for someone's daughters is different "filiae", while the word for someone's sons is the same "filii".
::::::For children with reference to their age, we have "pueri" -- which brings up the same problem again, since the word for boys is the same "pueri" but the word for girls is different "puellae". Or I guess we have "iuvenes", conveniently third-declension and accompanied by the convenient abstract "iuventus", but these ought probably to refer to older children.
::::::What I'm saying is that I suspect all the Latin words we might choose have undertones.
::::::: Very good. I couldn't agree more. Given this, the article on [[liberi]] is too narrowly conceived. But this discussion doesn't belong here, of course. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 14:39, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::(1)Just a clarification, but isn't Liberi as masculine meaning as Filii? Also Iuvenes? The feminine versions are Liberae, Filiae, and Virgines, right?
::::::::(2)I don't disagree about terms having multiple meanings in different cultures, but I wonder in what context Liberi is construed to mean "children" in general in the english sense n a modern context.... the Roman/Latin term encompassed underage children as well as adults in relation to their parents, as long as they were freeborn and legitimate (eligible for citizenship, and to inherit). Although slavery is a thing of the past (mostly), not everyone is eligible to be a citizen or to inherit wealth in all cultures, so not all children today would be considered Liberi by Roman standards, or even Roman standards adapted to modern contexts, IMO.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/124.9.3.162|124.9.3.162]] 05:00, 2 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with this, I think, though I find the argument about "liberi/children" a bit tortuous. Our job is firstly to find words that say what we want in Latin (and, as I said, we must understand that all such words have undertones); only secondly to transfer them back and forth between Latin and other languages.
:::::::::Sometimes, like philosophers or scientists, we have to be bold with common words that have undertones. (Luckily, in the language we're writing, those undertones are historical, and not strongly felt these days.) So we have to define our chosen words firmly (but in our case it should be in accord with the way that a preceding Latin authority used them) and insist that that's the way we mean them. I see no problem, if we want to write an article about iuvenes of both sexes ("youth" or "teenagers" or whatever might be the nearest English these days) to say that this is what we mean and to use that word for both sexes equally. The Latin word will conveniently accommodate that meaning.
::::::::::Gaudeamus igitur '''iuvenes''' dum sumus! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 10:35, 2 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
== Provincia Murensis ==
[[Provincia Murensis]] sententia mea deleri potest (pagina sine nexibus ac intervicis), quod idem ac [[Muri (districtus)]] est.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:52, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:Petivisti, feci.--[[User:Xaverius|<
::Gratias tibi ago, Xaveri!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 21:40, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Minime, mi Utilo!--[[User:Xaverius|<
== "maturitatem accepit" ~ "maturitatem adeptus est" ==
This phrase has turned up in articles by two of our German friends, looking as if it wants to
:Examen ultimum scholae mediae Theodisce "Abitur" (in Germania) sive "Matura" (in Austria) appellatur. Litteris Latinis verbo examinis maturitatis verti solet, cf. Vox Latina [http://www.voxlatina.uni-saarland.de/Historia_Ottiliensis/Historia_Ottiliensis_1.pdf Historia Ottiliensis]. In multis commentationibus Vicipaediae autem maturitas pro examine maturitatis posita est.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 14:34, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
::Ah, OK; itaque ergo haec locutio est proprietas dialecti Theodiscae. :/ [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:49, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
:::''Matura'' est quoque in [[lingua Slovena]]. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]]
== "European External Action Service" in Latin? ==
On 1 December the European External Action Service was officially launched. Here's the name of the service in the official languages of the EU:
* bg: Европейска служба за външна дейност
* cs: Evropská služba pro vnější činnost
* da: Tjenesten for EU's optræden udadtil
* nl: Europese dienst voor extern optreden
* en: European External Action Service
* et: Euroopa välisteenistus
* fi: Euroopan ulkosuhdehallinto
* fr: Service européen pour l'action extérieure
* de: Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst
* el: Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Εξωτερικής Δράσης
* hu: Európai külügyi szolgálat
* ga: Aontais Seirbhís Eorpach Gníomhaíochta Seachtrai
* it: Servizio europeo per l'azione esterna
* lv: Eiropas Ārējās darbības dienests
* lt: Europos išorės veiksmų tarnyba
* mt: Servizz Ewropew għall-Azzjoni Esterna
* pl: Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych
* pt: Serviço europeu para a acção externa
* ro: Serviciu european pentru acţiunea externa
* sk: Európska služba pre vonkajšiu činnost
* sl: Evropska služba za zunanje delovanje
* es: Eervicio europeo de acción exterior
* sv: Europeisk avdelning för yttre åtgärder
What would the Latin translation of it be? I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. - [[Usor:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] 23:39, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 187:
[[Fasciculus:Insignia of the European External Action Service.svg|thumb|200px|Vexillum [[Officina Agendorum Externorum Europaea|officinae agendorum externorum Europaeae]]]]
:::Tandem (si Ssolbergj vera dixit) a die 1 Decembris exstat haec officina. Sed videte insignia quae ad dextram partem paginae insero. Videtur opera officinae ex Afgania oriunda sunt et partim in caelo efficienda ...
:::In suggesting [[Officina Agendorum Externorum Europaea]] my aim, like that of any translator, is to reduce obscurity where feasible. In English you might be able to talk about the thing you are going to do as "action", but in Latin I think ''acta'' have to be things already done and ''agenda'' things you will sort out tomorrow, while ''actiones'' are something different anyway. At all events, there's my first suggestion.
::::My suggestion: ministerium rerum externarum Europaeum--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 11:30, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::The pattern in Bradley's Arnold is for the adjective to go first; hence, ''Europaeum Rerum Externarum Ministerium.'' Or maybe ''Europaea Factorum Externorum Opera.'' But maybe, like the Doctors without Borders, they're effectively lawyers without borders: ''Europaeum Litum Extranearum Ministerium'' ('actions' of course being court cases, ''actiones forenses''). ::winkwink:: [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:47, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::Ministerium is a very good word for "service"; my only hesitation is that this body doesn't call itself a ''ministry''. But maybe that's irrelevant.
::::::As to the word order, I would suggest saying "thanks but no thanks" to Bradley's Arnold. I think that book is telling us how to write nice Latin sentences but not how to form headings in encyclopaedias.
:::::::I'm a complete amateur here, but could the origin of the word ''agency'' be helpful? [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agency ''"1650–60;
:::::::Ministry is certainly a good word, and the service has indeed been unofficially called the EU's foreign ministry, but that word was clearly not used in the Lisbon treaty because it would be too tangible and state-like for europhobe electorates. In fact it was the British government that insisted that the title of High Representative shouldn't be changed to Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. - [[Usor:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] 18:39, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Why am I not surprised? :)
::::::::In this case, I am afraid, we have to pay tribute to europhobia. What about munus / officium / magistratus rerum externarum?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 19:59, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::PS: [http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/archi2009/breves.php?breves Ephemeris] has: "Catharina Ashton Anglica, commercii praefecta, Unionis ministra rerum externarum electa est"--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 20:06, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Then maybe we ''should'' go with your first suggestion, Utilo: "ministerium rerum externarum Europaeum". It matches up very well. Perhaps there are no europhobes on Vicipaedia?
::::::::::No objections from my side!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 21:06, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, it might have a good sound to it, but it will never ever be accepted as politically correct outside Latin Wikipedia. EU institutions actually have solid precedent for using Latin names for their institutions (in the official logos at least). For example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union_emblem.svg Curia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Consilium_logo.svg Consilium] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Court_of_Auditors_logo.svg Curia rationum] (that's three out of the EU's seven institutions!). I reckon this tendency must represent one of the biggest achievements for the Latin language in recent years. If the Wikipedia article of the service were to be called something that includes "ministerium", then I think the chance of seeing a Latin name being officially attached to the institution (by means of a logo), is reduced. The logo that is shown on the official [http://eeas.europa.eu/ website] right now appears to be only semi-official (i was the one who uploaded it to Commons) and I suspect it might be replaced by a new one. What's certain is that a translation containing "ministerium" will never be officially recognised. - [[Usor:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] 22:24, 4 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Can you state why ministerium is unacceptable? Ministerium literally means service in the most general sense, and minister servant/attendant, both coming from ministrare to serve/attend to. The only other words that come to mind in this political context is procuratio or legatio, but then it wouldn't be as literal a translation.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.64.184|123.192.64.184]] 00:52, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::EDIT CONFLICT: I can't delve into the roots of the words, therefore I can't discuss what they stem from; I'm only saying (or trying to say) that the word "ministerium" will undeniably be perceived to be a direct translation of "ministry", which in this case clearly is a complete taboo in the modern language translations. I've said why "EU minister" and "ministry" would be politically incorrect in the political climate of the EU, and as you might have noticed by looking at list of translations above: the word "ministry" (or equivalents) is deliberately avoided by all translators, even though so many of the languages have their own version of the word "ministerium". Are you confident that in case the Vatican was an EU member and was set to make a Latin translation of the treaties, would the translator really not hesitate to use the word "ministerium", considering its connotations? Are political sensitivities with regards to connotations of words to be taken into account, or do we only focus on the purest meanings of each of the the words in terms of classical Latin? - [[Usor:Ssolbergj|Ssolbergj]] 03:12, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes, I understand your point, it is the same one that worried me originally. The Latin word ''looks'' like "ministry", even though it is in truth an ideal word for "service".
::::::::::::''Procuratio'' is 'the work of an agent', while ''opera'' is 'instrumentality'. Let's watch out lest the Latin-happy EU people come up with something like ''procuratorium.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 03:02, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::or procuratio, procuramen, procuratura - or even procura?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 09:43, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 208:
:::::::::::'High representative' = ''legatissimus.'' ::winkwink:: [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 02:55, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::More seriously: ''amplissimus legatus, summus legatus.'' Ditto ''procurator.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 02:58, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Summus legatus" seems very good to me. Well, then, could we call the attached service a "legatio" or a "delegatio"? (Note sense II of "legatio" in Lewis & Short: ''the persons attached to an embassy'' etc., citing Cicero, no less.)
::::::::::::::As far as I can see delegatio (in Antiquity!) normally is used in the context of money and taxes. Legatio and summus legatus look good! - Just one more word to think about: moderatio / moderator / moderatrix?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 09:37, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
A problem with ''legatio'' or ''delegatio'' might be that the modern derivatives of these words are used to describe the different representations (of the EU and States) abroad rather than the overarching agency itself. In translating the name adopted by the Lisbon Treaty, it is worth keeping in mind that it is constructed in analogy to (and as a pseudo-modern update of) the term 'Foreign Service' / 'Diplomatic service'. The Vatican unclassically calls its equivalent agency [[:Secretaria Status (Sancta Sedes)|Secretaria Status]]. So maybe ''Secretaria Europaea de Negotiis Externis''? --[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 11:52, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 223:
::DNS = 'a system of the names of domains' ?= ''systema nominum dominiorum.'' + Classically, other words are available for 'system'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 04:37, 14 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
== Resonantia magnetica ==
Hi! Sorry I don't speak much (any) latin. I miss here an article about ''Nuclear magnetic resonance''. I work on that field and I wanted to make an artistic composition using text in Latin about that stuff, but anyways, a few lines on that topic is something which deserves being translated to any wiki. Could anyone interested in Physics take this as a translation proposition? --[[Specialis:Conlationes/95.122.163.43|95.122.163.43]] 18:24, 14 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:I [[Resonantia magnetica nuclearis|started the page]], so if anyone's interested in expanding / fixing it ... it's definitely not my field :D — [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] <small><sub>[[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disp]]</sub></small> 23:37, 14 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Linea 1 232:
Estne haec disputatio [[Disputatio_Usoris:Andrew_Dalby/Tabularium_1]] de pagina [[cramum]] vocanda iam finita an adhuc dubia manent? --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 20:40, 18 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:Bona quaestio? Si recte iudico, habemus verbum (post-classicum) ''cramum -i''; sed quid dicunt alii?
::''Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache'' ad vocem ''Creme'' habet: "Origo verbi Francogallici dubia est, forsitan e confusione verbi Gallici ''krama'' et verbi Latini tardioris ''chrisma''. Aliter et non sine gravi causa ''H. Meier'' ad vocem ''spumula'': H. Meier, Vox Romanica 47 (1988), 14-18." Estne, qui commentationem citatam perlegere possit (ego - eheu - procul a bibliothecis universitariis habito)?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 09:42, 19 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::Nonnulli fontes:
Linea 1 242:
:::::Et ego, attestationem in nuptiis abderitanis sequens--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 12:02, 19 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::Traupman (New College Latin and English Dictionary) has cream = ''cr'''e'''mum, -i'' and ''spuma, -ae lactis'' or ''flos, -oris lactis''. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:12, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::::::Also, we have this (The British Quarterly Review, Vol 68 (1878), [http://books.google.com/books?id=UQ0YAQAAIAAJ&dq=cremum&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q=cremum&f=false p 381]: Origin of the word "Cream"):
::::::::Aspexi digitos per lactea munera pressos,
::::::::Et stat picta manus hic ubi crema rapis.
::::::"'I have seen people's fingers daubed with the cream when dipped in the milk,' where ''pressos'' seems to mean ''depressos'', 'sunk through the surface of the milk.' Probably ''crema'' is here a neuter singular, and not the plural of ''cremum''."
::::::--[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:23, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I think these sources are simply based on an unreliable text of Venantius. It is Venantius (in modern editions) from which the word ''cramum'' comes. See the old discussion on my page -- you will see references to the same poem. Du Cange was the greatest in his time, but he has to be checked against later work.
== "Francomurarii" ==
Linea 1 255:
Please comment if you have a view.
Habetur [[
# Oportet ob talem sodalitatem categorizare? Aliquae vicipaediae negant (e.g. Anglica, Francogallica); nonnullae autem faciunt (vide nexus intervicianos in pagina categoriae)
# Si sic, quo nomine? "Francomurarii" rarissime apud google reperitur.
Addite, s.v.p., commenta.
== Alia res ... ==
Omnibus Vicipaedianis gaudia festiva voveo!
:felicia Saturnaliorum festa volo omnibus!--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 18:26, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
::congratulationes omnibus sustineo!--[[User:Xaverius|<
::: To all friends of vicipaedia I wish a merry Christmas and a lot of peace and love and for the believers gaudeamus quia Puer natus est nobis hodie in Bethlehem--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] 21:08, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Si recte numeravi, pagina no. 48 000 est [[Iberville Paroecia]] ab Helvetico incepta!
::::Gratias vobis ago. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 15:51, 25 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
:::::Ad optiones me adiungo. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 12:47, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
| |||