Disputationes antiquae

Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum.

Sententiae hic collectae inter dies et scriptae sunt.

Stipularum forma

Adaptatio ex commentario de Guglielmo Howard Taft:

Hoc est forma commentarii:
Gulielmus Howard Taft (natus Cincinnatopoli in Ohio die 15 Septembris 1857 - Vasingtoniae obiit die 8 Martii 1930) fuit magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem, vir publicus, vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913 et decimus dux Tribunalis Supremi (Anglice Chief Justice) ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930.
Gulielmus Howard Taft (1857–1930) fuit Praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae et deinde Dux Tribunalis Supremi.
Taft natus est Cincinnatopoliti die 15 Septembris 1857. Factus est magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem, vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913, et decimus dux Tribunalis Supremi, ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930. Obiit Vasingtoniae die 8 Martii 1930.
The suggested form will help a stipula grow. The second paragraph might initially be headed "Vita," and of course it will gain subheadings as the text lengthens. It will grow drastically at the points marked (here for illustration only) by ellipses:
Taft natus est Cincinnatopoliti die 15 Septembris 1857. . . . Factus est magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem. . . . Electus est vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae . . . a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913. . . . Praefectus est decimus dux Tribunali Supremo . . . . ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930. . . . Obiit Vasingtoniae die 8 Martii 1930. . . .
Articles should be set up with a structure designed to grow, what may be described as an open form. The current form of this article—as of many, many, many stipulas (especially biographical ones)—is closed. It will force anyone wanting to expand it to do needless extra work. Stipulas, obviously, are acknowledged by their authors to be incomplete: they shouldn't be designed so as to impede their expansion. The form I've suggested above is more amenable to growth. IacobusAmor 17:42, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
praeses et Civitatum (cf. Tituli: praeses versus praesidens) ThbdGrrd 13:14, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)


Vandalismus persistens

It seems our persistent Nebrasca vandal is making a point continuing to inflict himself upon us. See Lingua Escimona and Butyrumalia. It is amazing how much energy this creature has. Too bad he is incapable of directing the energy to creating rather than destroying.--Rafaelgarcia 01:30, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Well, I deleted those, so we can't see them, anymore. What a jackass, ey?--Ioscius (disp) 02:14, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should redirect the future facetiae of this gentleman to [1]? --Neander 02:24, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Wide image

Did someone make a version of the en:wiki's "Template:Wide image"? I seem to remember seeing one ... but I can't find it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

See Terrae motus--Rafaelgarcia 20:51, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
{{wide image|put image here,etc..}}--Rafaelgarcia 20:53, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

bot flag

For the record: As the bots Usor:VolkovBot and Usor:AlleborgoBot appear to do good work, I asked our grapheocrates to grant them bot status so that their edits will no longer show up in Specialis:Nuper mutata. --UV 12:41, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to suggest that sooner or later, anyways. Thanks, UV.--Ioscius (disp) 13:07, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Categoria ?

Hi, just a question, i know we are calling our category system categoria, i think this is most Italianic, in Latin this would be Categoriae, just a thought??, Hendricus 20:52, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's late and uncommon, but it's singular, so I'm not sure what you mean, Hendrice?--Ioscius (disp) 21:09, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
I mean Latin isn't always the same as Italian, i tought that category (eng) is categoria (Italian) and categoriae in Latin ( singular = categoriae > multiple = categorium ) or not ?? Hendricus 21:43, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Certainly Latin is not always the same as Italian...but in Latin the word is feminine and singular and categoria. Categorium would be a weird syncopated genitive plural (I've certainly never seen the word). Further, no word in the whole language (watch Muke or Iustinus or Fabullus or Neander or Iacobus come prove me wrong) that has its singular form terminate in ~ae. Don't really know where you got that, Hendrice.--Ioscius (disp) 22:35, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Ioscius: How many persons is Pasiphae? ;-)
(Hendricus: Don't let me confuse you – Ioscius is absolutely right and Pasiphae is not a Latin word, it's Greek.) --UV 23:22, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Well, I even win that one, UV. Categori|ae is a dipthong, while Pasiph|aë has a diaeresis! =] --Ioscius (disp) 02:31, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
In manu scriptis musicae medievalis et eorum editionibus modernis, saepe invenitur verbum Euouae, quod consistit in vocalibus verborum "[in secula] seculorum. Amen." !!! IacobusAmor 04:36, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
ok, was just a question, Hendricus 13:20, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

"Categoria" means *one* category. "Categoriae" are two or more categorIES.

Translation request

Môj, I don't know where to ask this, so i start asking here: translation request:

What do you mean? These names are already in latin... or do you mean something else? Harrissimo.
Oh, of course, I thought it seemed a bit of a strange question! I'll see what I can do. Harrissimo.
Thanks, Hendricus 22:35, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
I've done the first sentence for E. gran. All the medical terms are a pain in translation, though. Words like proglottid make me want to currere ad murum testaceum. Harrissimo.
I've had a go at it, but there may remain "gender & number issues" with "cestoda cyclophyllidea." IacobusAmor 03:31, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I see: Cestoda is a class and therefore plural, and Cyclophyllidea is also plural, so I've changed the phrase to cestodorum cyclophyllideum 'a cyclophyllid of the cestods', which seems to be what it's trying to say; of course biologists may have a better formula for it. IacobusAmor 03:40, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Societates ludicerae

Please see Disputatio:Mancunienses Uniti. I don't know whether we should be translating football club names. Should we use the names of the imhabitants of the city then urbs or uniti afterwards? Should we use the city names with SP after them? Should we just keep them how they are in their native languages? Harrissimo.

I am arch-conservative on this. I don't think we should translate the names of organizations, unless someone has already given them a Latin name. But I think most others disagree with me ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with translating names (just check societas Manufollii Universitatis Oxoniensis), although I see Andrew's point.--Xaverius 13:12, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
See how Boston Red Sox finesses the problem: the legally valid (English) term is the lemma, but every reference thereafter is to the Lation version of it. IacobusAmor 13:45, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
OK. The only two clubs likely to have sources are Mancunienses Uniti and Armorum Fabricatores (Arsenal). How should we handle the "thereafter referenced" names? (like urbs and uniti? I think we need a single method and club names from across different sports are springing up all over the place at the moment). Should we make something on TNP? Harrissimo.

Fairy stories

Cinderella is maybe our first article about a fairy story.

N.B.: There are usually no fairies in a "fairy tale," so we may be well advised to avoid that term, at least in English. IacobusAmor 13:41, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
  1. I don't know if we have any reason to choose the young lady's English name for our heading, rather, than, say, her French, Italian or Spanish names. (I don't suggest German, because Aschenputtel doesn't fit very nicely into Latin.) Any views?
  2. This has made me obey suggestions made earlier and move entries concerned with stage plays out of Categoria:Fabulae into Categoria:Ludi scaenici. That having been done, should Categoria:Fabulae become the place for fairy stories, or is Fabulae too general and ambiguous a word for that special concept? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
1In Spanish it is Cenicienta which I do not know how to translate properly, but ceniza is "ash" and -enta is and adjectivation coming from the Latin -ns (it would be something like covered in ashes or ashe-coloured).¶2 On this thing, fabulae is in my opinion too wide, despite the fact that fabula in spanish has a very precise meaning--Xaverius 13:16, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Re categories: you might consider if the proposed category is for European stories only, or whether it includes folktales from, say, indigenous peoples of Brazil. Do our German friends include non-European tales among the canonical Märchen? IacobusAmor 13:39, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, I think Categoria:Fabulae populares will work (corresponding to "folk tales" rather than "fairy tales", and not exclusively European). OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Quaeso inspiciatis Disputatio:Cinerella, ubi translationes quae attestantur enumeravi. --Ioscius (disp) 13:46, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago, Iosci! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Nicolaus Gross habet "fabellas Grimmianas", Grimms Märchen. (Märchen indicat omnes fabellas etiam in aliis partibus mundi.) --Alex1011 16:24, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure whether Compton Mackenzie is our first spy or secret agent. Do we have a Latin word for these professions? "Emissarius" was the best I could get from my dictionary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

For "spy" I find "speculator" (probably the etymological origin), but this might be more military reconnaisance. "Agens in rebus" was, I think, secret police. --Alex1011 13:53, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
One of my old dictionaries (Ainsworth's) offers: speculator, explorator, Corycaeus, custos, *catascopus. It has this model attestation: Speculandi causa missus erat in Ciliciam 'He was sent as a spy into Cilicia'. Another (White's) has the first two and adds that speculator was used by both Cicero & Caesar, and explorator by Caesar. IacobusAmor 13:55, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
The CLC uses explorator. Harrissimo.
My dictionary says that explorator is more of a scout than a spy--Xaverius 17:30, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, even the back of the CLC lists scout first. It seems to be inferior to emissarius. Nevertheless, it's probably what a Roman would have said and most dictionaries seem to prefer this and speculator. If we look into the verbs which are the basis for their formation, speculor: watch, observe, spy out, examine, explore and exploro: search out, explore, test, try out, reconnoiter, investigate. Emissarius looks more suitable but maybe less classical. Harrissimo.
Undoubtedly, someone will prove me wrong about the last bit ;) Harrissimo.
Spy. Etymology: Middle English spien, from Anglo-French espier, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German spehōn to spy; akin to Latin specere to look, look at, Greek skeptesthai & akopein to watch, look at, consider Date: 13th century.-Iosifer

Amici amicaeque mei (meaeque)! Tempus est!

Cras est butyrumalia! That's right everyone! The traditional Eskimo butter festival (see butyrum, butyrumalia, et nebrasca for details)is tomorrow, November 1st! Prepare the butter statues of your ancestors, and make the customary sacrifices to your household deities to ensure a plentiful butter harvest in the year to come. There will be horse-racing, discus-throwing, and whale-fighting in the arena near you! Refreshments will not be served, so BYOB (bring your own butter.)

Io! Butyrumalia!

Io! Butyrumalia!

You've got to admire their persistence...--Ioscius (disp) 03:19, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Nihil destruximus! Veritatem narramus. 20:49, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I don't like butter. Harrissimo.

De linguis officialibus Tabernae

Yo pensaba que la Vicipaedia era en latín, no en inglés; curioso, muy curioso...

Vide paginam primam: "Ecce nostra Taberna et Legatio, in quibus potes qualibet lingua intelligibili loqui" ... etiam Hispanice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Si come Andrea dijo, aqui podemos hablar en cualquiera idioma! Recorda, creamos una enciclopedia en latín, no discusiones.--Ioscius (disp) 14:49, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Cuando traduciendo de un idioma a otro, es muy util poder communicarse en ambos o mutiples idiomas. El latin tambien es especial porque ya no hay nadie que lo hable como lengua nativa. Ya que a mayoria de nosotros entendemos el ingles, ya que se convertido casi lengua internacional, por eso solemos communicar en ingles tanto como en latin. Pero si no entiendes bien el ingles scribe en latin o espanol y te entederemos. Salve --Rafaelgarcia 15:03, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

De passivo verbi saepire

¿Podría alguien decirme cómo es la conjugación de saepire en 3ra persona plural del pasivo?--Le K-li 17:13, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

->saepiuntur Romani ab inimicis saepiuntur ->los romanos fueron rodeados (circundados) por enemigos.--Rafaelgarcia 18:18, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Pop music

how do you say 'pop group' in latin?

Turma (vel grex) quae (vel qui) canit musicam popularem.--Ioscius (disp) 19:02, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Grex popularis would do the job too.--Rafaelgarcia 16:23, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
I would go for "grex musica popularis" or "grex musica pop" ("popularis" is a bit confusing because it might might mean in this case that they are a popular music band rather than a band that sings pop music, and pop music and music that is popular are not exactly the same thing) -Kedemus 07:15, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
As usual, Kedemus proposes something undeclinable. Let's stick with the declinable adjectives, I'm sure we can find ways to make its use unambiguous.--Ioscius (disp) 15:20, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
That same ambiguity exists in English, yet the desired meaning is always clear from the context. - 18:04, 2 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Re: "how do you say 'pop group' in latin?"—Exactly: in most contexts, grex will suffice: just plain grex. IacobusAmor 18:15, 2 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

De Adverbiis

Quomodo debeo substantivum declinare ut eadem ab adverbio præceduntur?

(if I didn't write it properly: How must I decline the nouns when they're preceded by an adverb?)

--Le K-li 16:01, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, adverbs have no bearing on the declension of a noun... Prepositions and verbs do, but not adverbs.--Ioscius (disp) 16:02, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Really?? :S :S :S I think I misunderstood everything. So, must I use prepositions instead???--Le K-li 16:11, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Ut bene Ioscius dicit, adverbia non sunt praepositiones; substantiva non afficiunt, sed verba. Exempli gratia considera adverbium bene: Bene homo dicit; Homo bene sententiam dicit; Bene homo sententiam dicit. In ea sententia bene solum verbum dicit afficit.
Quam rem vis ad latinum convertere?--Rafaelgarcia 16:17, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
What sentence are you trying to render in latin?--Rafaelgarcia 16:20, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
This one: Upon the table, a small wooden podium is set up.--Le K-li 16:28, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
In mensa, podium ligneo factum parvum instruitur; or equivalently, if you don't want to emphasize "upon the table", Podium ligneo factum parvum mensa instruitur.--Rafaelgarcia 16:35, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
May I use the adjective ligneus, -a, -um (which, according to Words, means wooden) instead of ligneo factum? Is that possible?--Le K-li 16:43, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think "podium ligneum" would be fine.
Which is your adverb? Upon is a preposition, corresponding to "in" in the Latin translation. Yes, prepositions have to be followed by a noun in a particular case. Which case? It varies with the preposition. You need to check in a dictionary. In takes the ablative when it means "in/on"; it takes the accusative when it means "into, on to". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Parvum lectorinum ligneum est super mensa erectum. [If a diminutive is OK: Lectorinculum ligneum. . . .] IacobusAmor 16:57, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Nomen lectorinum, quod secundae declinationis esse videtur, diminutive fit lectorinulum (sine 'c'), aut fortasse lectorillum (vide hic. Terminatio -culum pertinet ad nomina tertiae, quartae et quintae declinationis (vide hic). --Fabullus 09:10, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Also super (acc) could work. Harrissimo.
Hmmm, not quite, Harri. Super is like sub in that, when accusative, they imply motion. Super lunam bos salit means that the cow jumped over the moon (and landed/kept going on the other side). However, when ablative, they imply static (or at least not transient motion). Bombus super scruto volat means that the bee was flying over (the top of) the trash. So he could use super here with ablative, but not accusative. Etiam, mea quidem sententia, "in" melius sit. --Ioscius (disp) 16:55, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Iosci. Harrissimo.

Thx you all!!!--Le K-li 15:51, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

"Podium ligneo factum parvum mensa instruitur" "ligneo" è un aggettivo e qui era necessario un sostantivo "ligno". "Parvo ligneo podio mensa instruitur" mi sembrerebbe la migliore. Lio da Pisa.13 Januarii 2008
Fuit error typographicus; Legatur correcte "podium ligno factum" = "podium ligneum"; Sed mea sententia rectior fuisset "Lectorinum ligneum".--Rafaelgarcia 03:23, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Nova verbae

Are there official latin words for things such as potato, bicycle or lightbulb, or do people just randomly make them up? How do you know which words to use??????

A dictionary? Harrissimo.
The Evil meeting of München makes an official list once a year, after cutting up a sheep and cheking if the omens are favourable.--Xaverius 17:28, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just joking... I found the question really funny...--Xaverius 17:28, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

maybe someone could make an official list on Vicipaedia one day Usor:Kai_su_teknon

Of words? This why people like Traupman and the catholics write conversational latin books. There's also several on the internet. Maybe you'd like to see the links which another user asked to some dictionaries of such words. Harrissimo.
What you mean by "official"? There is no Royal Academy of Latin, just latin dictionaries, glossaries, and what is gotten by reading the literature. I would recommend the sources Harrissimo mentions, especially Traupman's conversational latin book for modern things.--Rafaelgarcia 18:16, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Also, re potato. A potato is a living thing. All identified living things—plants & animals—have official Latin names, given to them by highly qualified scientists. (In fact, to be scientifically recognized, almost every species needs a Latin name and a full scientific description published in Latin.) Several million such names are known and available. Unfortunately for those who like lists to be complete, microbiologists in the past few years have begun to understand that there are probably many hundreds of millions of species of unidentified microbes. IacobusAmor 18:19, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Potato = (Potato plant) solanum tuberosum; (potato itself) (common name) patata vel (scientifically descriptive name) tuber solani
bicycle = birota (Traupman)
light bulb = globulus electricus (Traupman)
--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ablative of Rigor

The enwiki article Hadrian's Wall has the following section in it:

RIGORE seems to be the ablative form of the Latin word rigor. This can mean several things, but one of its less-known meanings is ‘straight line’, ‘course’ or ‘direction’.

Could someone confirm this please? Many thanks. Tivedshambo 07:59, 9 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I can. This site proves that rigore is ablative of rigor and this one proves that is can mean ‘straight line’, ‘course’ or ‘direction’. Harrissimo.
Many Thanks. Tivedshambo 19:16, 9 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Error in pagina prima

Error in pagina prima sub pictura de Polynesiis navigantibus scriptus: muta "ca. anno 1781" ad "ca. annum 1781"; et "deus ...timebant" ad "deum...timebant."-anon

New formula

I made a formula {{Pars vicificanda}} to place on an otherwise good page where some new text has been added that needs vicifying and maybe Latinizing. I needed it for Ramayana but I think it will be useful elsewhere.

But what I can't do is to make it fit into the horizontal space available rather than conflict with an image that's on the page already! Can anyone help with this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Usor:UV for quietly solving my problem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hendricus - untranslated biographies

I copy here what I've just written on Hendricus' discussion page:

Dear Hendricus, first I wish to thank you for your incredible work.
I understand and share your target to enrich la.wiki, but the opening of a lot of untranslating pages doesn't make sense. The users of la.wiki are actually very few and we can't translate a lot of new pages. Therefore I beg you please to insert already in Latin at least the name, birth and death dates and activity of the person. If you desire to suggest new pages, you can rather use the taberna page. Thank you and ciao--Massimo Macconi 07:30, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


¿Cómo puedo traducir la palabra enmarcado/a al latín?--Le K-li 15:39, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Que es la frase entera? "enmarcar un foto" es "in forma includere", por tanto el participio es "in forma incluso/a/um". ¿Ti ayuda este? --Ioscius (disp) 13:16, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Es ésta: El lienzo del Señor de los Milagros se ubica sobre el eje transversal del anda. El lienzo, en cuya parte posterior se ubica el de Nuestra Señora de la Nube, está encuadrado por un doble marco de columnas salomónicas que rematan en capiteles a modo de querubines, sobre los que se apoya un arco ornamentado con especies de volutas y rostros de ángeles.--Le K-li 14:37, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Mi diccionario (Spes vox latina latino-español/español-latino) da forma, -ae para marco. Lo malo es que los romanos no usaban marcos y no tenian cuadros, así que creo que a no ser que haya una palabra tardía, enmarcado sería en mi opinión, algún derivado de pictus in forma positus/collocatus, pero yo no soy quien, aquí hay gente que sabe muuuucho más que yo...--Xaverius 16:11, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


On propose de renommer l'article Lutetia (nom ancien) et de substituer Parisius (nom médiéval, plus proche au nom français). Voir Disputatio:Lutetia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:27, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Pour mon part, j'ai toujours vu le nom "Parisius" en forme pluriel, c'est à dire "Parisii" (Parisiis publice iure factus etc.). Je crois que celà remonte à la "Lutetia Parisorum," qu'on ait abbéviée à "Parisii" (pluriel). Alors moi je dirais que le nom contemporait devrait être "Parisii" (dont le locative "Parisiis"). -Jackmitchell 19:43, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC) {I am copying this to Disputatio:Lutetia: hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:11, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC))

Categories for biologists

Hendricus has been asking me about building a category structure for the biologist articles he is adding. If anyone wants to comment -- or to disagree with me! -- our discussion is on my disputatio page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:27, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Praesens perfectus continuus

Quomodo possum verba in "present perfect continuous" transferre??? Exempli gratia: Quid est latina forma huius sententiae "I've been living in Rome for 3 years"? Gratias plurimas vobis ago! Equula

Romam tres annos habito? (Accusative of the extent of time.) -Jackmitchell 20:02, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
Tantum? Putavi esse quid difficilius! Gratias tibi ago.Equula

Per tres annos Romae vixi. Id puto, quia "habito" tempus praesens est nec minime tempus praeteritum indicat.Lio

"Tres annos Romae vixi" = "I was alive in Rome three years (and no longer live there)"; "Tres annos Romae vivo" = "I have been alive in Rome three years (and continue to live there)". "Per" in "Per tres annos" = "through three years" Latine est forma prava.--Rafaelgarcia 03:35, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Exempli gratia et "Tres annos Romae habito" = "I have resided in Rome three years (and continue to reside)".--Rafaelgarcia 03:36, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

geographical coordinates

Hi to all. i've managed to copypaste some templates from the English wiki to create geographical coordinates in articles (see: Promontorium Paeninsulae Eboraci), there are some red linked templates left in the structure, and the templates should be protected by administrators, for now the coordinates are workable at the articles, so maybe an administrator can look into this and get a finnishing touch, Hendricus 20:57, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Nice!--Rafaelgarcia 04:49, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Link FA|lt

Just for my info, what does this command, when placed between curly brackets, do? Anonymous has inserted it into a couple of files. IacobusAmor 14:37, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

It makes a star on the it interwiki link, to show that X article was featured (FA=featured article) at the Italian wikipedia. Harmless.--Ioscius (disp) 15:18, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
OK. Jes' wondrin'. IacobusAmor 17:30, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Carbohydrates, proteins and lipids

Aliquid scribere de Carbohydrates, proteins and lipids velim, sed nescio quales sunt latinae formae horum verborum. Nescio quidem si similes nexus iam sunt quia translationem ignoro. Quid est mihi faciendum? Potestis nonne mihi auxilio esse ? Equula

See Morgan's gloss. http://facweb.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm

--Rafaelgarcia 17:46, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

lipid comes from greek lipos (gen lipidis?)--Rafaelgarcia 17:52, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


¿Alguien sabe cómo se dice corbata en latín?/Does anybody know how to say necktie in Latin?/Est-ce qu'il y a quelqu'un(e) qui sais comment dire cravate en latin?

Gracias de antemano./Thank you in advance./Merci par avance.--Le K-li 05:50, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Focal -is. Harrissimo 15:15, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
Petrus Needham habet "fascia, ae, f", b:Lingua Latina in libris de Harrio Potter/Nova verba --Alex1011 15:28, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Focale -is is a scarf according to Morgan, also termed fascia collaris, while neck-tie is fascia Croatica or just fascia for short, attested as coming from LRL. --Rafaelgarcia 15:30, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
(Head scarf would then be "focale capitale".) --Alex1011 15:42, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
White's dictionary defines English 'cravat' as focale. Ainsworth's defines one focale as "A muffler, to keep the throat and neck warm, Mart. Quint." and another focale as "A garment worn by the fire-side, Sen." Among the senses of fascia, Ainsworth's includes (I condense the entry): "1. a swathe, band, or roller, used by the ancients on their thighs and legs, instead of breeches; 2 a bandage for wounds or broken limbs; 3 a cloud; 4 a wreath about the top of a pillar; 5 a diadem; 6 a stomacher, or breast-cloth, a child's bib, a scarf." ¶ Ainsworth's welter of senses of fascia show no obligatory association with the neck, whereas focale does show an attested association with the neck. Also, for fascia, the sense of 'scarf' is the last one listed (and presumably then the least particularly relevant one). Therefore, for 'necktie', focale seems the likelier bet. IacobusAmor 15:52, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Academic Degree

Please see this. Also, I thought it best to follow the example of Universitas Harvardiana and use "graduandus" for "undergraduate" and "graduatus" for "graduate". Just to be complicated, you can do an undergraduate master's degree at Oxford and a graduate bachelor's degree. O di immortales! Leigh (disp) 21:40, 21 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've always liked laureatus better than graduatus...--Ioscius (disp) 15:15, 23 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Egger D.L.?

Does anybody know what this might be the abbreviation for? I see it in Morgan a lot and look forward to citing it in some of our country pages. Harrissimo 19:15, 22 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

I have responded on your page, Harri, but the Cliff notes are:
>Diurnarius Latinus (Opus Fundatum Latinitas, Romae, 1980)
--Ioscius (disp) 21:29, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


I can't open the page nuper mutata, something wrong?--Massimo Macconi 11:55, 23 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I can open it. May it be just your browser?--Xaverius 12:02, 23 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Help needed to translate Latin book titles

Hi, is anyone able to help provide English translations for the following book titles in Latin that appear in "John Parkinson (botanist)"?

  • Paradisi in Sole, Paradisus Terrestris (1629) – this is currently translated as Park-in-Sun's Terrestrial Paradise, which seems a bit strange to me.
  • Theatrum Botanicum (1640) – this is currently rendered as The Botanical Theatre, but one source has Theatre of Plants instead. Which translation is better?

If necessary, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've had a few helpful responses to this. I didn't spot the pun on "Parkinson" – it just didn't make sense to me. Still need some translation help over at "John Parkinson (botanist)": see the talk page there. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:17, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at the English talk page. --Ioscius (disp) 13:38, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Translation of more Latin book titles

Hi, I'd be grateful if someone would provide English translations of the following additional Latin book titles (and imprint information, where necessary) that appear in the article "John Parkinson (botanist)" over at en.wikipedia:

  • Medicorum Collegij Londinensis [Royal College of Physicians of London] (1618). Pharmacopœia Londinensis in qua medicamenta antiqua et nova vsitatissima, sedulò collecta, accuratissimè examinata, quotidiana experientia confirmata describuntur. Opera Medicorum Collegij Londinensis. Ex serenissimi Regis mandato cum R.M. Priuilegio. London: Printed by Edwardus [Edward] Griffin for Iohannis [John] Marriot, ad insigne iridis albæ in platea vulgò dicta Fleet-street.
This is off the top of my head, others will want to give their input: "London pharmacopia in which are described the most useful old and new drugs, diligently collected, very accurately examined, confirmed by daily experience. Work of the London College of Doctors. By the mandate of the very serene King with R.M. (?) privilege. London...Marriot, at the sign of the white iris in the square commonly called Fleet-street." 05:18, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
  • van de Passe, Crispijn [the Elder] (1614[–1617]). Hortus floridus in quo rariorum & minus vulgarium florum icones ad vivam varamq[ue] formam accuratissime delineatae et secundum quatuor anni tempora divisae exhibentur incredibili labore ac diligentia Crisp. Passaei junioris delineatae ac suum in ordinem redactae. Arnheimij [Arnhem]: Ioannem Ianssonium [?Jan Janszoon the Elder].
Again, this is a first effort to which others may respond: "Floral garden in which are exhibited images of rather rare and less common flowers, in living and bent [? or "veram" = "true" or "variam" =" various"] form, delineated very accurately and divided according to the four seasons of the year, [exhibited] by the unbelievable labor and diligence of Crispus (?) Passaeus the younger, delineated and brought back into their own order." 05:18, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Do respond at the article's talk page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:53, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Other translation suggestions are welcome at talk page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:07, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Res amoris gestae

"Res amoris gestae"? Is it not clear to you how silly this phrase is? It seems as though many of you need to go back to your Caesar, your Livy, your Cicero so that you can remind yourselves of what Latin looks like. Perhaps take a cruise through Bradley's Arnold. Is it not apparent that creating an encyclopaedia in this language is a fool’s errand? intellectual masturbation? Do you not understand that there is a difference between Latinitas and felicitas? Articles on Green Day and Eskimo kisses lack both. Do you understand that keeping a not very funny article on canned ham for months while deleting immediately anything on the Nebraska Eskimos is rank hypocrisy? Escimonicorum Magister Osculorum 17:31, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Jeff, there is often a lack of both felicitas and Latinitas apud nos. That's why we don't need blatant vandalism. You're right about the canned pork, too, and I would have deleted that if I had seen it before. I also agree with you that res amoris gestae is pretty poor. I don't know why any of this encourages you to write nonsense, instead of trying to help in a serious manner?
As for intellectual masturbation, I leave you with two quotes:
Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love.--Woody Allen
Give me rampant intellectualism as a coping mechanism.--Chuck Palahniuk
--Ioscius (disp) 18:21, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the magister too. I die every time I see that awful yellow {{Iocus}}. And I say this although I have spent some of my life (from long before Wikipedia was a twinkle in Wales's eye) writing reference books that, incidentally, just now and then, make people laugh. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
But in your pontification you have made a logical leap, O magister, and stumbled on landing. Is it not apparent that creating an encyclopaedia in this language is a fool’s errand? No, it isn't. The fact that we haven't yet done it well enough doesn't mean that it can't be done. Rolandus (who hasn't been around recently, I'm sorry to say) wrote to me that he thought we might get there in about 50 years. Compared with the gestation period of the Oxford English Dictionary that's a respectable timetable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I apologize to those in the academe and others who are horrified with my latin but I'm working hard to improve and would like to enlist your aid. I'm working hard to read Cicero and other classics. Below is my attempt(please feel free to correct all or any) and request-Jondel;

Salve omnes! Quaeso si ille vobis placet mihi adiuvare quam sum tironis latine et maxime studeo ne deleat res dziipni. Adeo rectificationem feci et prebeo sequens(quid putatis?? ):

'Dziipni, est modus popularus conmunis vecturae Philippinis et passim videtur.

The jeepney is a popular means of transportation in the Philippines and is ubiquitous. How is this?

'Dziipni, est facultus popularus conmunis vecturarum Philippinis et passim videtur.

Why the double ii? If long i just draw a line over it once to let people know how to pronounce it.
Here is my version of how the article should start:
Jeepey (in phillipino: Jeepey) is a kind of bus that is seen everywhere in the Phillipines.
->Dzipi (Phillipine: Jeepey) est species laophori quae in Phillipinis ubiquaque videtur.--Rafaelgarcia 21:13, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

In principio facturii exercitio Americanis militaribus relictus ex Bellico Mundo Secundo.

At first they were manufactured by the American forces that were left behind from world war 2. How is this? :changing to this=>ab exercitibus Americanis relictis(plural ablative) Thus:

In principio sunt facturii "ab" exercitibus Americanis militaribus "quae" relictis ex Bello Terraro Secundo.

Is this better: 'Dziipni, est modus popularus conmunis vecturae Philippinis et passim videntur.

These buses at first where manufactured out of vehicles left by the American army after World War II.
? Haec laophora primitus fabricantur e vehiculis a exercitu Americano post Bellum Orbis Terrarum II relictis.--Rafaelgarcia 03:31, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Clarus est decoraminium gaudiorum et densitatis convectoris.

It is well known for its guady decorations and being crowded with passengers. Is this better?: Notus est proptere quod est decoravus gaudium et densitatis convectorum.

Gratias ago--Jondel 04:59, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Jeepy are well-known for gaudy decorations and for the crowdedness of its passengers.
Dzipi noti sunt propter gloriosas decorationes et propter frequentiam suorum convectorum. --Rafaelgarcia 03:41, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Rafael, gratias ago. Thank you very much, I will be using all your corrections. However, its Jeepney not Jeepey. Also I would like to add the idea that it is a transportation that the common man (plebians) use . , So I will probably add 'est facultas frequens plebonorum et..." . Denueno , thanks again.-- 13:10, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC) --Jondel 13:38, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Jondel, Are you using a dictionary? plebonorum? A crowded means of plebians? how exactly do you associate facultas with transportation?? or take plebs to be a second declension noun? But even if you mistook it for a 2nd declension it wouldn't be right--where did the -on- come from?.--Rafaelgarcia 13:23, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Uh sorry, the online notre dame was offline a while ago. The idea I would to express is :J... is a popular means/way of commuting/traveling "of" the lower income bracket people(majority). The 'on' was supposed to be a plural genitive tack-on (to mean "of") . The online notre dame dictionary is on now.facultas was meant to be 'means of' or 'way of'. Maybe I should use plebis? How's this? Dzipni est modus popularis convecturi(convecturae?) pro plebe. Is 'plebe' derogative? Hmm--Jondel 13:38, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
There is no such tack-on in latin. Where did you get that? If you can't avail yourself of that one dictionary, then you should try to use some other ones on the internet like Words. If you want help, then you should at least show that you're doing your part, right? I would write modus vectoralis apud plebes popularis and yes plebes is derogatory but only in the same limited sense as common is in english. Regardless, I think you are misguided in your facts, for based onthe english wiki the Jeepney's are more expensive to ride than a regular airconditioned bus.--Rafaelgarcia 17:23, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I'm pretty sure Words is the "online Notre Dame" to which Jondel is referring. For the record, again, Jondel, this program is downloadable to your computer. I used it for years online, cursing it whenever it was down (which is all the freaking time, but it's still better than Perseus!!!). Then I downloaded it (it's a tiny little file) and it's been groovy since. I actually have to confess I downloaded it on all my friends' computers, too =] Wherever I go I can use Words!--Ioscius (disp) 21:08, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Rereading my comments I see myself coming off as haughty when I didn't mean to. We all make mistakes after all. Sometimes the simple things go right past me. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from pitching in to the best of their ability. We don't have enough editors as is. :) In fact, it is interesting reading about Jeepneys, although it would have been nicer and more fun learning about them in latin.--Rafaelgarcia 20:41, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


I highly appreciate your help which I'm sure will save article in essence. Please understand that I am doing my part to my best abilites. The online notre dame dictionary I was refering to is the WORDS dictionary. I normally directly type http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe. It is now on http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe.

The double i in dziipni was because I wanted to spell Jeepney as Dyipni. The y being represented by i=> double i. But I think dzipni is just fine. I will move the whole page to dzipni.

Jeeps by the way are cheaper than busses. I know because I live here now in Manila.Minimum jeep fare is now is 7.5 pesos. While buses are at 9 pesos.

Again I am a beginner and I don't pretend to be an expert. The reason for this article correction request is to fulfill a requirement so that the article will not be deleted. Well, thats all. I'll be making a copy of this dicussion onto the discussion page of the dzipni page.


--Jondel 13:37, 28 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Account deletion

How can I delete my account or my user page?

See w:en:user:Adam Bishop (and remember to mention that it is the latin wikipedia which your account is on). Harrissimo 14:00, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
Anyone can delete your userpage, but I don't think we can delete your account. I certainly can't, at least. Your name will still appear in article histories. Adam Episcopus 15:14, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Harrissimo! ;) Now I've requested my discussion page deletion too. Thanks, Adam :)

Sorry! I thought that bureaucrats could delete a user. Harrissimo 15:28, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
User accounts cannot be deleted, but bureaucrats can rename users (which will also affect the author which is given in page histories, but which will not affect the content of pages, e. g. past signatures on talk pages). --UV 19:24, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you know, BTW, why these external links keep making 3 or 4 spaces between them and the next piece of writing? Maybe it is just my browser. Harrissimo 19:26, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
It is. My computer isn't showing bullet points either at the moment. Harrissimo 20:48, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
Your browser should show a small graphical arrow to the right of an external link, hence the spacing. Maybe you switched off the display of graphics in your browser? If this is not the cause, you might try to clear your browser's cache. --UV 00:05, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Reditus Spiculorum

Two words in my Spiculorum ludus page are bothering me. Does anyone know how to say "clockwise" and "to score a point"? (as in 'the player scored 130 points'). Harrissimo 17:45, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC).

Circum horologium would be my best guess for the former. Backpedaling from Italian we might go with sensu horario. I know I've struggled with the second question before, but I can't for the life of me rememebr where or what my final verdict was . . . --Ioscius (disp) 20:36, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

quid de "puncta (re)ferre" verbis: "e.g. ille tria puncta retulit"? --Andreas 03:17, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

versiōnēs Anglicō-Latīnae

nescio num hanc rem tractare debeam Latine an Anglice. aliquot versiones vel potius sententias versas iam conscripsi in variis paginis Googlis sed plus quam aliquantulum displicet modus operandi ibi quod difficile est conferre mea verba cum versionibus iam confectis (et quod saepe non apparent versiones). quae est historia versionis Mediaviciae. quinam impetraverunt et quomodo. cur exempli gratia utimur hic verbo "convento" pro "login/account"? in eo est ut forsan versiones scribam pro programate "Moodle" sed hodie legebam sententias Anglicas et timeo ne horribiliter Latine vertam. estne umquam documentum de electionibus iam factis hic et cum disputationibus participum? --Andreas 03:49, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Andreae, nescio quapropter in Vicipaedia "login/account" dicitur "convento" nec ubi est pagina disputationis de hoc. Possumus mea sententia disputare hic. Mihi videtur nomen "sessio" melius fuisse.--Rafaelgarcia 04:22, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
A while ago, I started Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary, mostly as a compilation of what was then the status quo. Note the difference between account (ratio) and session (conventum). --UV 00:09, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

corpus textuum Latīnōrum

estne umquam sub umbella "Vicimediae" locus idoneus quo ponamus textus ipsos Latinos sicut inventos sub thelatinlibrary.com? mihi videtur necesse nobis habere corpus quod recensere et polire possimus. --Andreas 03:56, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

sane in Vicifontes ponamus.--Ioscius (disp) 04:36, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

formula vexillorum

Didn't we have recently already somewhere a formula for small flags/vexilla? --Alex1011 08:12, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Alex?--Ioscius (disp) 16:42, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
We have some of those formulas, you can find them in Categoria:Formulae vexillorum. --Amphitrite 17:08, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Gratias. That is what I meant. --Alex1011 19:04, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Saint Peter's Square

Which is the latin for Saint Peter's Square?--Le K-li 16:23, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

My guess, possibly wrong, would be Forum Santi Petri, but I'm sure that a more reliable source exists somewhere.--Rafaelgarcia 17:22, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
It's called the Platea Sancti Petri according to the italian wiki page it:Piazza San Pietro. Platea means wide street or avenue. I would have thought Forum was better. Our own latin page calls it Forum Sancto Petro, but I think that must be wrong. --Rafaelgarcia 17:46, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we've had this problem before, I can't remember where. Sancto Petro is certainly incorrect.--Ioscius (disp) 18:06, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Actually my goof. It actually says Forum Sancto Petro dicatum->Forum dedicated to St. Peter which is correct. In my eagerness to find a gloss of the name, I missed the dicatum!--Rafaelgarcia 18:52, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Present Progressive

Is there in Latin any tense similar to the English Present Progressive Tense? How/when can I use it?--Le K-li 21:29, 28 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

The Latin present tense covers English simple present "i blank" and present progressive "i am blanking".-_Ioscius (disp) 07:04, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


Insidia a ip --Rafaelgarcia 02:10, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Omisisti Mentulam. IacobusAmor 02:59, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Ita. Recte dixisti. Subsequenter iam paginam correxi... Num summus hic in Vicipaedia hodie ut Romani Saeculo XIII ?--Rafaelgarcia 03:14, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

17,000 paginae

Habemus hodie 17,000 paginas! Numero 17,000 fuit, ut credo, pagina brevissima Massimi (hoc tempore anonymi) sub titulo Lacrimae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

dignitates militum

One of us had a page of all military titles in Latin and other languages. But this page seems to have gone or is not any more accessible. I thought of optio. --Alex1011 19:08, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean usor:Thoma D./lexicum? Harrissimo 19:21, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC).
Thank you, I did not find it. --Alex1011 19:26, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)


What's tha Latin for aftershock? Thx in advance!!--Le K-li 17:02, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Shock = impulsus, vexatio; ergo aftershock = postimpulsus vel postvexatio.--Rafaelgarcia 17:09, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'm not so sure about the redirect Concussio...--Ioscius (disp) 18:26, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Really? If necessary, I agree about deleting it.--Le K-li 23:16, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
PS: Are you sure about postimpulsus vel postvexatio? I mean, aftershock is how we call the earthquakes following a higher-inrensity earthquake, right?
I just made a suggestion based on a direct translation. Even in english aftershock has many possible meanings not just an earthquake that follows a main earthquake. If you want a totally unambigous phrase then you can use something like: terrae motus parviores qui saepe terrae motum principalem sequuntur. --Rafaelgarcia 00:02, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I'd try motus recidivus or motus secundarius. For example: In sismologia, motus recidivus est terrae motus qui post motum maiorem eodem loco minore vi accidit. --Neander 00:25, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Thx a lot!!!--Le K-li 00:35, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Somehow motus secundarius sounds better to me than motus recidivus. Because recidivus does not imply that the motus are smaller.--Rafaelgarcia 00:48, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you're right. Morbus recidivus may be even worse than the original disease. --Neander 03:44, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Please see Disputatio_Formulae:Pellicula#"Film Director" Latine. What are your opinions? -- Secundus Zephyrus 21:20, 1 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Alright, I've been up and down the internet and can't find anything on this, so could any of you be of any help? How does one pronounce modern dates in latin? Here's an example and the specific problems.

Marx Augustae Treverorum die 5 Maii 1818 natus est.

Do I simply say day 5, i.e. die quinque, or do I say the fifth day and if so, which case? Is die masculine or feminine in this context? The same goes for the year. How does one pronounce 1818? What case is it? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Good question. If we don't have a page explaining this (maybe we do somewhere ...) we need one. I think the answer is this.
The proper way for dates in the year is this. Die is ablative, meaning "on the ... day". The number should be read as an ordinal in the ablative to match, thus quinto (fifth) or vigesimo quinto (25th). The month is then in the genitive, meaning "... of May".
A year, immediately following such a date, would be "anni 1818" (but we usually don't bother to write the "anni") and that should all be read as an ordinal numeral in the genitive. As with any foreign language, this wants a lot of practice to get it fluent!
A year on its own (without day and month) will often be preceded by "anno" in the ablative, meaning "in the ... year", and, if you want to do it right, it should be read as an ordinal numeral in the ablative. Again, keep practising ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:04, 2 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Cur Vicipaedia computatione Julii non utitur? e.g. "die quinto Maii anno 1818" esse debet "a. d. III Non. Maii, MMDLXXII," (Roma condita anno DLIII ante Cristo) aut aliquid similis. Nollo offendere, tamen curiosus sum. Etiam, meam mediocrem Latinam ignoscatis, amabo te. Non optimus discipulus sum, et usum de Latina lingua requiro. -- Nemo Singularis
Quod prima versio est moderna atque simplicius atque nobis magis intelligibilis. Hic in Vicipaedia utimur omnibus ingressis scientificis, numeris arabicis inclusis et systematis modernis. Non est nostrum propositum recreare hic mundum Caesaris historiam humanam ignorando.--Rafaelgarcia 05:55, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Video. Illud rationum videtur. Tibi gratias ago. Atque deis immortalis gratias ago quod linguam Anglicam et non mathematicam (aut linguas antiquas) studeo. Cum aetatem Romae computabam, ducenta ommisi! --Nemo Occidaneus (Singularis)
Bene...Sed cave quod studeo non significat study sed I am eager; study~disco, discere; vel etiam studeo+ablativo->I am eager with/for~I study+something. Vale--Rafaelgarcia 00:31, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Viceregnum vel vicerregnum?


I've got a doubt. I found the article viceregnum Peruvianum, but I think that the word viceregnum should be written with a double "r" - this way: vicerregnum -, because of the pronunciation. Unless the Latin "r" is always pronounced in the same way, I think that the pronunciation changes from a strong "r" (in regnum) to a softer "r" (in viceregnum).--Le K-li 02:22, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

viceregnum is correct from Latin "vice". --Alex1011 09:18, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alex. If there was any shift in pronunciation of intial r when such compounds were formed -- and no one can really know whether there was or not -- at any rate no change was reflected in the spelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thx a lot!!!--Le K-li 12:12, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Porta eruditionis

I know I'm a bit tiring on this... but nw it seems that we have more and more Latin students joining (Usor:Latinology, usor:Kerrysheehy, usor:Magistertatnall; cf Disputatio:Schola Tatnall) we should really start our porta eruditionis. What Iacobus has been doing today could be a way of dealing with this matter. And what about a template going beyond {{tiro}}? We could ask these students to write their pages in the porta eruditionis and everybody could helo there, because if they create the pages, they might go unnoticed... Well, just a thought...--Xaverius 18:42, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

No, Xavi, you're absolutely right. I've been meaning to get off my ass and do something about this. December 19th is my last day, and I will have all of January for Vici. I promise to focus efforts on the Porta primarily.--Ioscius (disp) 18:59, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I think the idea of putting the beginners' pages within the Porta Eruditionis is a very good one. Can they be made sub-pages of the porta, e.g. Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Cinerella? Would that work? A template like {{Tiro}}, with a date limit, meaning "Please let me work on this page until xxx date", might also be a good idea. Then, when the date is passed, we can upgrade and transfer the page if we want. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:45, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Or even Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Cinerella so that we can have a list of subpages pages at the scriptorium? After the students' short reapperance today, I think for reason that the pages should be deleted due to our policies (poor latinity, not enough content, need vicification) I am going to move them to a scriptorium where they can be improved over time (these students only appear now and again). Any objections? To the word Scriptorium? To the idea? Harrissimo 17:44, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
Do it, I say. Scriptorium is a good word. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Not a big thing ... but the shorter Vicipaedia:Scriptorium/Cinerella might have advantages over Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Cinerella
  1. It is shorter ;-)
  2. The link is easier to guess if someone refers to "Scriptorium".
  3. The "Scriptorium" is not necessarily a part of the "Porta eruditionis"
  4. We could have some introduction on page Vicipaedia:Scriptorium
  5. The pages would be automatically linked up to this introduction on page Vicipaedia:Scriptorium. Now there is a link from Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Cinerella directly to Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis and the Scriptorium-subpage will be skiped (it seems that pages shall not have more than one level of subpages).
--Rolandus 21:31, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not seeing this sooner :S. The Idea of it being in the (longer to type) Porta Eruditionis is that it is for students to make rather than having an {{In progressu}}Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo {{In usu}} up for months (or as I mentioned above, poor latinity, not enough content, need vicification). I say that because somebody who is more adept at latin can have an in progressuNomen formulae mutavit --Grufo in usu on a normal page for a few weeks (as long as they keep going with it), but these students' sometimes un-vicipaedic work needs to stay somewhere. I could make a compendium (VP:PE/S) so it is easier to access or even make a Vicipaedia:Scriptorium as a redirect. I have completed an introduction and have put on links. What do you mean about the subpages being skipped? Harrissimo 22:01, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
It seems that the existance of page Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium makes it work. Now there are two links to parent pages provided in the top left corner of the page: "< Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis | Scriptorium". Before just this was provided: "< Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis". --Rolandus 21:00, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I was just a little confused about this project...is this planned to be in vernacular languages, or completely in Latin? -- Secundus Zephyrus 20:38, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Mea sententia scripturus erat Latine, sed etiam hic illic cum exemplis in aliis linguis, exempli gratia quomodo iam facimus in paginis de Latinitate, fortasse cum dropdown menus in variis linguis. Quomodo dicitur dropdown menu Latine?--Rafaelgarcia 22:47, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
delectus tabula replicabilis. --Alex1011 23:07, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Melius forsitan 'index replicabilis'?--Rafaelgarcia 01:20, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Well, then it seems that the Porta Eruditionis should be in our new year resolutions. And when I finish the term, I will try to help more around here... I have been rather busy and left vici aside... sorry!--Xaverius 11:09, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Attestation City!

Today's New York Times has an article that publishes attestations of the following names:

Alfredus Maximus 'Alfred the Great'
Georgius Bushus Senior 'George Bush Senior'
Hillaria Clintona 'Hillary Clinton'
Williamus Clintonus 'Bill Clinton'
Jacobus Garfieldus 'James Garfield'
Rudius Giulianus 'Rudy Giulani'
Alanus Hollinghurstus 'Alan Hollinghurst'
Thomas Jeffersonus 'Thomas Jefferson'
Nixonus 'Nixon'
Barackus Obamus 'Barack Obama'
Jacobus Polkus 'James Polk'
Academia Philliporum 'Phillips Academy'
Eduardus Rooseveltus 'Edward [sic] Roosevelt'
Conlegium Williami Mariaeque 'The College of William and Mary'
Episcopi Loughlin Memor Schola Alta [?] 'Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School'
Fontium Caldorum Schola Aqua [sic!] 'Hot Springs High School'
Hiram Conlegium 'Hiram College'
Patres Fundantes 'The Founding Fathers'
Virginiae Universitatis 'The University of Virginia'
Wellesleia 'Wellesley [College]'
Whittior 'Whittier [California]'
Whittioris Schola 'Whittier School'
Williamiburgus (oppidum in Virginia)

Ecce fons: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/03mount-latin.html. Hmmmmm. IacobusAmor 23:12, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

It also provides an attestation for 'docere' = 'to learn' ("Jeffersonus, novem annos natus, linguas Latinam et Graecam ad scholam in Virginia pontifice Caledonio administratam docere coepit." = "Jefferson started learning Latin and Greek at age 9 at a school in Virginia run by a Scottish clergyman."). 23:25, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Eduardus Rooseveltus is used for 'Teddy Roosevelt.' ("Teddy Roosevelt studied classics at Harvard." = "Eduardus Rooseveltus aeterna Harvardi didicit.") 23:35, 3 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Any credence for this attestions is in my opinion undermined by the fact that he uses 'studere' instead of 'discere' for 'to study,learn'. And 'docere' means 'to teach' not 'to learn'. His level of latinitas is dubium.--Rafaelgarcia 00:32, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
And by what logic, Jeffersonus Clintonus but yet Hillaria Clintona, since when do surnames change with the gender of the person. Would Caesar's daughter have been Caesarea and not Caesar? Should my name be Garcius? And what's with the use of lengthy Roman numerals--shouldn't latins avail themselves of advances in science? Don't get me wrong, he makes a good point about studying latin and roman history. A point that needs to be made now more than ever. However, as a source he is untrustworthy.--Rafaelgarcia 00:41, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know, and the first sentence (Primum, duces nostros linguam Latinam non iam studere triste non videtur) even uses the rare (or "wrong"?) studeo + acc. instead of + gen. or dat. But the point is that the New York Times is a well-known & reputable publication, and those are therefore attestations, whether we like them or not (and for the most part, I don't). If we're going to remorphologize Obama, there's no reason why it can't be Obama, -ae, m., and accordingly no need to make it Obamus, -i, m. And if we're going to treat the English suffix -ey as Latin -eia, then we might as well go with Sydneia instead of whatever we now use (and I seldom remember)—and likewise, Britneia (as in Spears). Aiieee! O aqualem vermium! IacobusAmor 04:43, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
It's a publication, but it isn't known as a reliable source of Latin. In any case, many of our "reliable sources" differ among themselves. I think wise Vicipaediani will adopt the NYT's attestations when really convincing. When they are not convincing, the most we should do is to footnote them -- without adopting them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question: Did Roman women have surnames? And if, which ones? --Alex1011 08:31, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
To answer Rafael above, in some languages that have both declension and gender, surnames do regularly change with the gender of the person. In modern Greek, for example. And modern Greek resembles Latin in this. Hence, in Latin, we get Iulius/Iulia, Clodius/Clodia (which are nomina); or Marcellus/Marcella (which is a cognomen). Curiously, if we rely on usual sources, Roman women did not have or use forenames! Their names as known to us are nearly always based on nomina and/or cognomina, i.e. on surnames. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Well I've learned something! Very interesting. How the world changes.--Rafaelgarcia 13:26, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I would think that in a modern context, the husbands name would be in the genitive Hillary Rodam of Clinton->Hillaria Rodama Clintoni (following the pattern of the NYT article of translating all the names, not the Vicpaedia standard).--Rafaelgarcia 13:30, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
This guy just wrote a book called Carpe Diem: Put a Little Latin in Your Life discussing the ways in which Latin has crept into normal parlance, with rudimentary grammar. He follows the same conventions, annoyingly, in his book. The final straw was Tomassus Crusius, I almost threw up. I have some praise for the book, some of it is endearing, and the stories he tells about Latin in his own experience and in the experience of others is valuable. But I don't like his Latin.--Ioscius (disp) 17:58, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

primus minister VS. minister primarius

Hi all. Sorry if this is an oldie, but there seems to be no consensus on "primus minister" vs. "minister primarius" as the translation of "prime minister." (I find primus minister here, here; minister primarius here.) It seems to me it should be "minister primarius," as I understand "primus" to be principally (if not exclusively?) ordinal, i.e. denoting "first in a sequence," whereas primarius means "primary," i.e. "foremost," which I think best expresses the role of the PM in most parliamentary systems. What do you think? I'd like to do up stipulae for Canadian prime ministers and I'd like to start dextro pede. Jackmitchell 05:19, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be primarius minister. It is so quoted in Morgan's gloss.--Rafaelgarcia 16:48, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Placet! Jackmitchell 22:16, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Does Morgan give a source? For the United Kingdom, definitive attestations most likely appear in the Latin summaries of debates in Parliament. IacobusAmor 17:08, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Could you please review and correct this article? Maximas gratias ago. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 19:28, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Paginam inspexi, multa didici, parva correxi. Jackmitchell 22:12, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Gratias! ;) --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 09:07, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Hi again!!!

A new doubt: what's the Latin for carat (vel karat)?--Le K-li 22:55, 4 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the latin word for that exists. If necessary you may need to coin an equivalent, either from the original greek, e.g. keratio or from the romance languages. To me caratus seems the better choice. Regardless, you can avoid the whole issue and just state the weight in standard SI units: chiliogrammata, grammata, or milligrammata. A metric carat is 200 milligrammata.--Rafaelgarcia 02:02, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The current word for carat is ceratium; see W.R.Cattelle (1903) Precious Stones, p.69; cf. Isid.Orig. 16.25.10 & 11; also Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch sub voce. Other variants are attested (caratus, caratta, carrata, etc.) but I believe ceratium is the standard. --Neander 02:23, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Dominus Miraculorum

Could you please review and correct this article? Thank you in advance.--Le K-li 14:31, 5 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it might turn out into a really nice page. I feel bad not having helped improve it. Unfortunately, my specialty just isn't religion.--Rafaelgarcia 00:04, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Set, Superset, Subset

Verba latina quaero pro "Menge, Obermenge, Untermenge" (in English: set, superset, subset) in contextu mathematicae. Num quis me adiuvare potest? -- Scriptor17 17:42, 8 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Credo verbum pro set esse recte collectio; ergo superset est supercollectio et subset est subcollectio.--Rafaelgarcia 17:57, 8 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Equidem puto a vocabulo copiae proficiscendum esse: copia 'Menge', subcopia 'Untermenge', supercopia 'Obermenge'. Neander 03:40, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Cave, quod in mathematica set potest significare et elementi multitudinem {A,B,C,...} et solum unum elementum {A} et nihil elementi {}. Copia non potest mea sententia significare {A} et {}. --Rafaelgarcia 04:07, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Meum profecto non est tecum de mathematica altercari! Sed si 'empty set' Germanice leere Menge dici potest, non video, cur etiam de vacua copia loqui non possimus. Mea quidem sententia nihil obstat, quin copiam putemus tamquam involucrum quoddam abstractum membrorum quorum numerus a zero ad infinitum extenditur. Sed ut dixi, de hisce rebus tu me melius cognovisti. --Neander 04:36, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Post unos dies illum pensando, assentio cum Neandro quod copia sensum set aptior capit quam collectio. Causa est quod copia (grammaticali in numero singulari) semper significat numerum rerum similarum quendam, aut abundantia quaedam. Collectio autem significat numerum qui colligitur quemquam etsi dissimilares sint. Ita collectio' est generalior quam copia, sicut collectio est generalior quam set.--Rafaelgarcia 00:24, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


I think that centuries should be written using Roman numerals because I'm quite sure that that was the way they had been written. Nowadays, in all Romance languages they are written with Roman numerals. I'm not sure, but I think that English-speaking people are the only ones who use arabic numerals for writing centuries.--Le K-li 02:29, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Don't our German comrades use Arabic numerals? Jackmitchell 01:14, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, English speakers are not quite unique after all. But, like Le K-li, when writing Latin I find it handy to write centuries with a Roman numeral. One can do this while still linking them to the century page, thus saeculo X. I don't think anyone objects! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you . . . "saeculo 10" just looks wrong. Jackmitchell 19:23, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
It means that I'm not the only one who thinks so!!!--Le K-li 14:36, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

PS: Does anybody know how to say conquest in Latin? -Le K-li

Can you provide a context? As in "He has achieved many conquests?" or "to conquer" or "the conquest of gaul"? --Rafaelgarcia 03:39, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Conquest, from conquer.--Le K-li 05:05, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
If you don't say which sense of conquest you are looking for I have no idea how to answer the question except by trying to guess every conceivable possibility. It is customary to supply a context when asking for a meaning by supplying a phrase using the term. Conquest in the sense of conquered country? the idea of conquering? the action of conquering? etc... OK here is my attempt to guess what may have been in your head: conquer = vincere, conquered country = terra victa or natio victa; abstract idea of conquering/winning = victoria. --Rafaelgarcia 07:38, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
What I want is to know how is it called the process of conquering a country, e. g. The Spanish Conquest, wich is referred to the process of conquering the Inca and Aztec (and other civilizations) empires.--Le K-li 15:09, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
William the Conqueror was sometimes called in Latin texts "Gulielmus Conquestor". Alex1011 15:53, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
We have been using conquisitator fr the conquest (cf Conquisitatores Hispanos and its disputatio page), although for the Spaish Reconquista I think that Recuperatio has been used--Xaverius 16:36, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Again it depends precisely on what you want to say: in the sense of subjugating the people one could write: subiugatio Hispanica; In the sense of invasion, e.g. invasio Hispanica; in the sense of seizing and colonizing a country: occupatio Hispanica. Conquisitor literally means "one who searches or inspects", i.e. an explorer and the conquistadors where so called because they explored the "unclaimed" lands in order to claim them for their home countries. Of course they did a little conquering/subjugating in addition to exploring.--Rafaelgarcia 16:55, 9 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Language articles

I'm adding some articles for language families and languages, and I've upgraded (I think!) the infobox (see {{Capsa linguae}} and {{Capsa familiae linguarum}}). (I see Harrissimo has just upgraded {{Lingua artificiosa}} to match.) The colours in these boxes will match the cross-wiki colours for language families.

I'm planning to check some details in the existing infoboxes, and one thing I am itching to do is to reduce the number of sub-families and sub-sub-families and sub-sub-sub-families listed in certain cases (see for example Lingua Aragonica). This sort of hair-splitting is popular in one or two traditions of linguistics, and the worthy en:Summer Institute of Linguistics thinks it's fun, and from the SIL database it has passed into en:wiki. Other linguists think that you can never do it satisfactorily, and when you have done it as best you can it hasn't necessarily taught you very much; I'm one of those. I've nothing against discussing the sub-classifications in the text of language-family articles, all in favour in fact, best place for it, but I don't think these always-arguable details belong in infoboxes. If anyone disagrees, tell me now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I have added a variant infobox {{Capsa linguae desuetae}} for languages that are extinct or are no longer anyone's mother tongue (because in these cases certain details will never be relevant, and there are others that need to be added in their place). It can be seen in use at Lingua Latina and various registers and periods of Latin for which we have articles (cf. next section!). If anyone thinks some detail should be added to it, better say so now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I think some correction should be made to this template. I miss a very important thing in it: after sermo vulgaris, Latin is called linguae Romanicae, as these are the live continuation of Latin language, because the so called Latin ceased to be spoken. So what we call then Medieval Latin, New Latin, etc. is just an artificially re-created language, because live Latin now is called Spanish, Italian, etc. I just suggest indicating it some way in the template. Gratias. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 19:39, 10 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Nunquam tamen desisterunt docti Latine loqui: sermo doctorum medii aevi non erat lingua quaedam Latina renata vel reconstituta sed lingua Latina vera per ecclesiam transmissa. Nec sunt linguae hodiernae quas commemoravisti (Hispanica, Italiana, Francogallica) minus "reconstitutae" quam lingua Latina medio aevo propria: erant olim mille sermones per orbem qui a lingua Latina originem tractabant, quos "dialecta" nominamus, priusquam docti linguas Romanicas aedificaverunt. Censeo linguam Latiniam aequam cum linguis Romanicis dignitatem merere (vel meruisse), etsi alius sermo alium propositum servat. Jackmitchell 00:36, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Jackmitchell recte dicit. Mea sententia est absurdum appellare linguas modernas Hispanicas, Francicas, Italicas linguam Latinam modernam. Sunt linguae assequelae, sed distinctae.--Rafaelgarcia 01:21, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Memento quod dixit linguista Max Weinreich anno 1945: "אַ שפראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט" = "A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot" = "Lingua est dialectos cui sunt exercitus et classis"! IacobusAmor 02:23, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I never saw that in the original language before -- [cf. en: -- thanks, Iacobe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Inter Vicipaediam anglicam et Latinam, formulae de hoc differunt:
Anglica: vetus <75 acn; classica 75acn-200; medievalis 300-1300; renascentis 1300-1600; nova 1600-1900; recens >1900
Latina: vetus <75 acn; classica 75acn-100; vulgaris 200-800; medievalis 800-1500; humanista scientificaque 1500-1700; neolatina >1700
Nescio satis de historia. Quid est correctum?--Rafaelgarcia 02:41, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Formula nostra non admittit status semi-coaevales linguae; sed re vera habemus. "Sermo vulgaris" debemus distinguere a saec. 2 a.C.n.; lingua post-classica (Ammiani Marcellini, Sidonii, etc.) omissa est; lingua scientifica utuntur et hodie; lingua ecclesiastica omissa est; linguae Romanicae, ut recte dicit Mexicanus, omissae sunt. Sed quis potest formulam complicatiorem facere? Minime ego! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Sane dictum illud praeclarum Maximi Weinreich diligo, sed spectat ad linguas vivas. Utcumque si volumus dictum linguae nostrae adhibere, significari videtur dialectos Hispanicam, Francicam, Italicam, etc. linguas proprias esse et, mirabile dictu, Vicipaediis propriis et suis dignas. Di meliora! --Iustinus 07:08, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Hm, thank you for your answers, but may be you didn't catch my idea. What I say is, that up to the 6th century, approximately, Latin was the native language of many people; maybe there were already dialects, but they did not differ so much to not call them Latin. But after the 8th century, Latin in its relatively united form stopped to exist, it was no longer a native language of any people, because by then, they spoke any of the dialects we call now Romance languages. I hope you just don't want to say me that Latin is spoken natively by people now :))) (Well, maybe there are people who learnt it very well, but it is not native and first language of anyone.) --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 07:24, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; in a proper lingua Latina timeline the Romance languages have to be there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to divide the timeline after Sermo Vulgaris: the upper banner would be the same now it is, and create a lower banner saying Linguae Romanicae, paralelly. Shall I do it? --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 18:16, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

This is how I imagine it:

Historia Linguae Latinae
usque ad 75 a.C.n. 75 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 1 p.C.n. saeculum 2 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 8 p.C.n. saeculum 8 usque ad saeculum 15 saeculum 15 usque ad hodie saeculum 17 usque ad hodie
Lingua Latina archaica Lingua Latina classica vel aurea Sermo vulgaris Lingua Latina mediaevalis Lingua Latina humanista et Lingua Latina scientifica Lingua Neolatina
Linguae Romanicae (Francica, Hispanica, Italica, etc.)

I put a grey background for the last 3 simbolizing that they are not native languages. If you know a better or nicer solution, you can edit and try it here how it looks. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 18:46, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the following would be more accurate, historically, though I haven't tried fixing the formating. (the grey looks ugly and the last rows need to be centered.
Historia Linguae Latinae
usque ad 75 a.C.n. 75 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 1 p.C.n. saeculum 2 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 14 saeculum 14 usque ad hodie saeculum 17 usque ad hodie
Lingua Latina archaica Lingua Latina classica vel aurea Lingua Latina mediaevalis Lingua Latina humanista et Lingua Latina scientifica Lingua Neolatina
Sermo vulgaris Linguae Romanicae (Francica, Hispanica, Italica, etc.)

--Rafaelgarcia 19:28, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the formatting, but the problem with your version is that Romance languages already existed in the 10th century. For example Spanish is not spoken just from the 15th century, the first poem is from the 12nd. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 19:50, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the formatting assist But I think that spanish (castilian) did not exist as a formal distinct language with a dictionary and grammar until the 14th century. "The first steps toward standardization of written Castilian were taken in the thirteenth century by King Alfonso X of Castile, known as Alfonso el Sabio. He assembled scribes at his court and supervised their writing, in Castilian, of extensive works on history, astronomy, law, and other fields of knowledge." Before that I suppose it would be indistinguishable from sermo vulgaris tardis in hispania. Anyway give or take a hundred years isn't a big deal in this I think. These evolutions were not overnight but gradual.--Rafaelgarcia 20:00, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
One question is the standardization and another the fact of existence of a language. The first Castilian poem was writen in the 12th century (Cantar de Mio Çid) and it was a complete and mature language by then. You would understand it almost as well as today's Spanish. The age of a language is not the same as when it was first used in literature. :) Another suggestion to the timeline, we should also indicate with different colors that Romance languages are the live, or, more precisely, historical continuation of Latin. What do you think? --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:07, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
One solution is to split this column into two? Like this the romance languages can arise earlier than lingua humanista? Or we can just understand the century to be approximate plus or minus 200 years. I don't agree that medieval or even neolatina isn't a historical continuation of latin. It is in fact a continuation that is historical. THe fact that latin wasn't anyone's native tongue in the 17th century is important, but when the romance languages split off from latin, then they became separate languages, no longer latin. Latin is latin, french is french, spanish is spanish, all different.--Rafaelgarcia 20:15, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, what I try to explain, that Romance languages did not "split off" from Latin. They are THE Latin in its always live and evoluting form. Latin and Romance languages never existed paralelly as live languages. Once we are talking of Romance languages, there is no live but artificially maintained Latin. The error is as many people imagine, that there was a Latin language and once from the nothing appeared the Romance languages and the Latin continued to be spoken. But it was never this way :D --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:33, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
My point is do you define a language by who speaks it or by its grammar, rules, and vocabulary? I'm sorry but those colors below are hideous...--Rafaelgarcia 20:24, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to just be butting in now, but perhaps on the left we might have links to oscan or umbrian or the like?--Ioscius (disp) 19:48, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

But Oscan and Umbrian are separate languages, while the romance languages are the live continuation of Latin. Oscan and Umbrian are not dialects or mother languages of Latin. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 19:52, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

What about this?

Historia Linguae Latinae
usque ad 75 a.C.n. 75 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 1 p.C.n. saeculum 2 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 14 saeculum 14 usque ad hodie saeculum 17 usque ad hodie
Lingua Latina archaica Lingua Latina classica vel aurea Lingua Latina mediaevalis Lingua Latina humanista et Lingua Latina scientifica Lingua Neolatina
Sermo vulgaris Linguae Romanicae (Francica, Hispanica, Italica, etc.)

--Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:20, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

THe following is the truth as I see it, although the colors are hideous.Rafaelgarcia 20:26, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Historia Linguae Latinae
usque ad 75 a.C.n. 75 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 1 p.C.n. saeculum 2 a.C.n. usque ad saeculum 14 saeculum 14 usque ad hodie saeculum 17 usque ad hodie
Lingua Latina archaica Lingua Latina classica vel aurea Lingua Latina mediaevalis Lingua Latina humanista et Lingua Latina scientifica Lingua Neolatina
Sermo vulgaris Linguae Romanicae (Francica, Hispanica, Italica, etc.)

No, because the living continuation are the Romance languages, not the Medieval or Scientific Latin. This is what the green color was supposed to mean. :) --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:36, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have a clue about this new concept you are pushing. If I go to school to learn spanish I expect spanish to be taught, if latin, latin. This "living continuation" is nonsense; living continuation of latin is Newton and Gauss, not Les Miserables and el Cid. Castilian did not continue latin it REPLACED it. They're called linguae Romanicae not linguae latinae.--Rafaelgarcia 20:57, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I explained it in Spanish in your discussion page. I think you forgot one thing: a living language is in constant evolution. It is not the same during 2000 years. So, Latin was a living language like any other, but its form we call now Latin, was just some (let's say 300 years) of its history, then step by step it converted to the Romance languages. I never said they were not different languages, of course they are, but the concept would be the correct representation in the history timeline. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 21:16, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
This is nearer the truth, I think. Vulgar Latin (our Sermo vulgaris") is contemporary with Classical and post-Classical Latin. The Romance languages are undoubtedly a continuation of spoken Latin; the problem may be with fitting too many different views of language into a timeline! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:06, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
One more edit. The colours, to me, mean: written/classical standard (green); spoken language (red). Of course, the Romance languages developed their own written and classical standards, but that's too far beyond a Latin timeline I think.
We should remember that the only purpose of this should be to guide readers to articles in which the issues are discussed. Truth does not reside in timelines. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:12, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Historia Linguae Latinae
usque ad saec. 2/1 a.C.n. saec. 2/1 a.C.n. usque ad 1 p.C.n. saeculum 1 usque ad 8 saeculum 9 usque ad 14 saeculum 14 usque ad 19 saeculum 19 usque ad hodie
Lingua Latina archaica Lingua Latina classica vel aurea Lingua Latina argentea et post-classica Lingua Latina mediaevalis Lingua Latina humanistica Lingua Neolatina
Lingua Latina scientifica
Sermo vulgaris Linguae Romanicae (Francica, Hispanica, Italica, etc.)

What about this one? I like it :) --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 21:22, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a nice compromise and much more accurate to the truth than any of the previous versions.--Rafaelgarcia 21:32, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we could agree about it. So, lets execute the changes. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 21:47, 11 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

The table looks real fine but it appears to suggest that the "Sermo vulgaris" didn't begin until saec.2/1 BC. But of course it run as an undercurrent even in the archaic period. Plautine Latin (and the kind) represents the written form of this sort of sermo. This is clearer in the timeline given in the article on the "Lingua Latina archaica". --Neander 00:00, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
My intention was to cover the vulgaris aspect of Plautus by saec. 2 BC and the beginning of classical Latin by saec. 1 BC.
To make finer distinctions, and e.g. distinguish the beginning of scientific Latin from the beginning of Humanist Latin, we might need a different design. But, I say again, truth doesn't reside in timelines. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Ummmm, I know this is out of order, but I lost the thread. Mexicane, I quote from Palmer:
"These so called 'Italic dialects' (Volscian, Velitrian, Oscan, Umbrian, Paelignian, Marrucinian, Vestinian, etc)indubitably show many resemblances to Latin, but the precise degree of relationship is difficult to determine. Scholars are undecided whether they are to be regarded as different dialects of one and the same language, 'Italic', or as separate languages."
Deserves mention in the history of lingua latina, as I reckon.--Ioscius (disp) 01:58, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Not to complicate an already complicated discussion which has been ably de-complicated already, but isn't there a strong socio-linguistic aspect to all this? I mean, I think we can say that if Cicero wasn't speaking Latin, nobody was; but Cicero and his cook might be speaking quite different idioms ("sermo classicus" vs. "vulgaris," I guess). Likewise, I presume that your average Gaul in Lyon might speak, from the very get-go, quite a "dialectical" form of Latin. So by the time we get to Ausonius writing beautiful classical Latin (and perhaps speaking it - who knows?) while the rest of the world apart from his class is well on the way to speaking Romance languages, we've got the coexistence of two languages; and who's to say people don't grow up speaking more than one language, one "classical" and the other everyday? We've practically reached this stage in English now, I'd say, in that there's a fairly noticeable difference between literary and scientific English and ordinary speech: we just rarely see the latter in written form, so we call the former "correct." For all I know (which isn't much) the educated classes of, say, the 10th century might still have felt that popular speech and Church Latin were in some sense the same language, even if we don't now regard them as such. Anyway, none of this affects the latest timeline which strikes me as excellent, but just to say we should beware of essentialising language. Jackmitchell 04:34, 12 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Betawiki: better support for your language in MediaWiki

Dear community. I am writing to you to promote a special wiki called Betawiki. This wiki facilitates the localisation (l10n) of the MediaWiki interface. You may have changed many messages here to use your language in the interface, but if you would log in to for example the Japanese language Wiktionary, you would not be able to use the interface as well translated as here. In fact, of over 1,700 messages in the core of MediaWiki, 1030 messages have been translated. Betawiki also supports the translation of messages for well over 100 extensions, with over 1,550 messages. Translators for over 70 languages contribute their work to MediaWiki this way every month.

If you wish to contribute to better support of your language in MediaWiki, as well as for many MediaWiki extensions, please visit Betawiki, create an account and request translator privileges. You can see the current status of localisation of your language on MediaWiki.org and do not forget to get in touch with others that may already be working on your language on Betawiki.

If you have any further questions, please let me know on my talk page on Betawiki. We will try and assist you as much as possible, for example by importing all messages from a local wiki for you to start with, if you so desire.

You can also find us on the Freenode IRC network in the channel #mediawiki-i18n where we would be happy to help you get started.

Thank you very much for your attention and I do hope to see some of you on Betawiki soon! Cheers! Siebrand@Betawiki 16:44, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

  • Currently 58.68% of the MediaWiki messages and 19.67% of the messages used in extensions used by the WMF have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. Thanks, GerardM 13:06, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Sermo vulgaris et biblia vulgata

THe recent discusison of sermo vulgaris as distinct from classical latin, got me to wondering if vulgar latin circa 400 AD corresponds to the latin in the biblia sacrata as translated by Jerome? The point is that at 400AD , the vulgar latin in the bible seems hardly different from Ciceronian latin except for, I would say, style and some seemingly minor vocabulary choices. Or did I miss something.--Rafaelgarcia 18:49, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

A big issue, maybe one for an article rather than a Taberna item! First, the differences betweeen the Vulgate and Cicero are greater than you suggest (look again at the word order, the structure and linking of sentences, the Vulgate's use of the present participle and of relative clauses). Second, Ciceronian Latin is not a monolith: Cicero's letters are closer to the sermo vulgaris than his orations. Third, although Plautus, Cicero, Apuleius and Jerome all give us evidence of the sermo vulgaris, it is indirect. The texts that give more direct evidence of Vulgar Latin are inscriptions (notably graffiti) and totally unliterary documents (Apicius is an example). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
A point I should have mentioned is that (as with all languages) pronunciation changes continuously, and may not be reflected in spelling. That's the case with Latin, and it's why graffiti, written by people who can't spell, are so useful. That's also why the emergence of Romance languages appears sudden. It wasn't: rather, they become suddenly visible to us at the point when (in the 9th/10th century) they were recognized as so distinct from Latin that in order to write them effectively a new orthography was adopted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
The main difference between spanish and latin, it seems to me, is not so much in the vocabulary and pronunciation as in the loss of case structure and connecting words.And apparently both case structure and connecting words are in full evidence in Jerome's bible.By 400 the pronunciation may have evolved, the grammar seems to have evolved only slightly.
I repeat: the evidence that Jerome gives of the sermo vulgaris is indirect. Vulgate is not identical with Vulgar. But there's quite a bit in the Vulgate that would have horrified Cicero's grammar teacher. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Indeed good points.--Rafaelgarcia 17:23, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
You're saying that at some point Latin was like english, where we don't pronounce things the way they are spelt, and spelling is a difficult skill to master in itself. I think there is plenty to suggest that that is what was happening. Nevertheless, it is surprising to me that the difference between Vulgate and Ciceronian latin is no larger than the difference between english 300 years ago and english of today, because 400 years later the language had become so different. It suggests to me that something significant happened after 400. And indeed something did. --Rafaelgarcia 14:32, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Until 400 the Army, administration, Empire-wide trade, transport and culture, all strongly discouraged the break-up of spoken Latin into dialects; and, in addition, encouraged the maintenance of a single written standard. The collapse of the Empire was crucial linguistically. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, as you say, that event seems to be pivotal. Judging from how modern english came into being, wars, invasions, etc., more generally, seem to be the main causes of large language shifts. These in addition to illiteracy and what one may call "bulkanization" of a culture. All of these causes seem plentiful after the fall of the empire.--Rafaelgarcia 17:23, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
There's a parallel, if I recall correctly, in the seemingly quick change from Old English to Middle English: the Norman conquest didn't just suddenly discourage people from inflecting their nouns, but by making Norman French the language of administration it lifted the veil, as it were, on centuries of linguistic change which had not been reflected in the written language. Jackmitchell 02:20, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Eh, I'm trying to write an article Custodes (comicus), and I cannot seem to find the word for graffiti, aside from figura graphio exarata from Lexicon Vaticanum Rerum Novarum, which is awkward and doesn't really fit in this situation...got any better words? -- Secundus Zephyrus 06:38, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Potest oportere neologismo uti, sicut graphitus -i, quod secundum fontem dubiosam iterretialem, "Es un término tomado del latín graphiti: en italiano, "graffiti" es el plural de graffito, que significa "marca o inscripción hecha rascando o rayando un muro" y así se llaman las inscripciones que han quedado en las paredes desde tiempos del Imperio Romano. Raffaele Garrucci divulgó el término en medios académicos internacionales a mediados del siglo XIX." Si hoc neologismo uteris, oportet te scribere exempli gratia graphiti, id est figura graphio exarata in muris vel locis publicis...aut similes. --Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Priusquam verbum finxeritis, date tempus quo petam. Credo me aliquid sequi...--Ioscius (disp) 01:50, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Civitas antiqua

¿Podría alguien traducir esta plantilla? Me parece mejor que la que actualmente tenemos.--Le K-li 15:49, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

No se de esto mucho, pero seria bueno si dijeras las razones por que sientes que es mejor.--Rafaelgarcia 17:26, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Es que incluye más información, aparte de la que ya trae la plantilla actual. También podría traducirse la versión inglesa.--Le K-li 17:51, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I added an example text in Hispanian Vulgar Latin (or proto-Spanish), which is much closer yet to Latin than the Old-French text you put. --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:46, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Could any one help me to finish translating this? Thx in advance!!--Le K-li 05:26, 17 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but it's so complicated! It's difficult to know where to plunge in. But for "sine definiundo" you might want "sine definitione". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:05, 17 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
OK--Le K-li 21:14, 17 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


I am unsure of how to write percents in Latin..."Decem partes humani ADN per centem est fragmenta endogenuorum retroviorum" would this work for something like "Ten percent of human DNA is fragments of endogenous retroviruses"? Tibi gratias ago! -- Secundus Zephyrus 06:45, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Centum for one. For two, I'm not entirely sure, but I bet Rafael knows.--Ioscius (disp) 12:54, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Berard uses ordinal +pars ex centum, thus 10% -> decima pars ex centum. --Rafaelgarcia 13:37, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Nonne "e centum" esse debet? -- Secundus Zephyrus 20:17, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Berard's book, it turns out, has two instances where he quotes a percent:
"... Experimentum, qualiacumque sint eius singula, ita constitutum est ut quinquagesimis partibus ex centum (50%) probabile sit fore ut gasum liberetur eademque portione sit probabile non fore. ..."
which I translate-->"THe experiment,..., is so constituted so that with the 50th part out of a hundred it be probable so that the gas be liberated..."
"...Alterna condicione, quod ad unicam particulam quampiam attinet, tolli possint ad amussim quinquaginta partes ex centum (“50%”) et (I) omnium momenti impetus numerorum qui particulæ tribui possint et simul (II) omnium locorum quos eadem particula occupare possit."
which I translate--> "With the other condition, ...,they (the probabilities) can be raised to almost 50 parts out of 100.... both (I) of ...and at the same time (II) of...."
Note that in the second case he does not use the ordinal but in both cases he prefers ex to e in front of a number, despite the fact that the number begins with a consonant. So that the formula he uses is: number + pars ex centum. --Rafaelgarcia 21:20, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
In your case "Decem partes Humani ADN e centum" -> ten parts of human DNA out of 100, may or may not quite mean what you intend. But "Decima pars Humani ADN e centum"-> A tenth part of Human DNA out of 100, which catches your meaning of 10% more closely. Or even more simply "Decima pars Humani ADN" already says 10% of human DNA, right?--Rafaelgarcia 21:30, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that "decima pars ex centum" is a conflation of "decima pars" and "decem partes e(x) centum". "Quinquagesima pars ex centum" is of course nonsens, "a 50th part out of a hundred" being more likely 2% than 50%. "Quinquaginta partes ex centum" on the other hand would make perfect sense. In normal Latin idiom X partes (X being a cardinal number) means X parts out of (X+1), but by adding the "ex centum" the default denominator of X+1 is effectively cancelled. --Fabullus 21:57, 18 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. You make a good point. It sounds like Berard made a goof. It should be a cardinal rather than ordinal.--Rafaelgarcia 00:27, 19 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't forget that Latin has a noun for 'percent', viz. centesima. So, I'd translate "Ten percent of human DNA is fragments of endogenous retroviruses" as Denae centesimae humani ADN e fragmentis retrovirorum endogenorum constant. --Neander 03:21, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


I would like to create some portals like Porta:Finnia. I would prefer Porta:Berolina, Porta:Germania and Porta:Francia. I could collect the articles of these regions but I need the graphic/basic for it. Thanks a lotVulpinus 15:16, 19 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

As you can probably see, I used a messy formula which was made straight from the wiki programming. I would advise that you do what the Pagina Prima does and create various templates with your own colours, text etc. Harrissimo 15:36, 22 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
I've changed it now, so you might want to copy. What do others think about Portae? Harrissimo 18:31, 22 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
I think they are fine so long as there are people to keep them active and updated. It's something that Vicipaedia has to consider seriously because, compared with major-language Wikipedias, we editors are thin on the ground. I guess the main thing is to plan low-maintenance portae etc. I agree, too, that following to some extent the pattern of the Pagina prima has a couple of advantages: some of the layout work is done for you, and the design looks better because it matches what we have already. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I put together a template that should make the creation of a portal fairly easy: {{Porta}}. It is not too flexible, but it should allow for a good start. When you create a portal (see Formula:Porta/exemplum 1), you just have to specify a page title ("titulus") and create the introduction text (which is mandatory, that's the "caput" redlink).
You will automatically be provided with suggestions for further items to add to your portal (that's the "Tu quoque adiuvare potes" box). If you decide to do all this, your portal will look similar to Formula:Porta/exemplum 2. Hope it's useful, and merry Christmas! --UV 01:25, 25 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It still seems better to me if someone of you create the formula of a portal like Porta:Berolina or Porta:Germania, then i fill it in the next days. I am not sure with the formulae. Merry Christmas!Vulpinus 10:01, 25 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
To UV: Thank you for the work! Is there any way you could have the font colour and formatting as an option (like with the white and caps in the dark blue the present Porta:Finnia?).
Sure, see Formula:Porta/exemplum 2. Greetings, --UV 02:33, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
To Vulpinus: UV has set it out quite clearly. Maybe you should start the Porta:Germania and, when (or if) you go wrong, you can be corrected. It doesn't look hard to use and I'll undoubtedly be converting the Porta:Finnia to it soon. You could even make usor:Vulpinus/Porta:Germania so that you don't need to worry about slipping up? Harrissimo 01:32, 27 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
I tried it analoge to Porta:Finnia but failed. Could oyu please help me? Thank you. http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania:Prt-finnia-intro, http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Vulpinus/Porta:Germania Vulpinus 10:14, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Correct format for adding grammatical information

What would be the correct/preferred format for adding grammatical information, like the genetive-ending and the gender, to a word? Do we have a standard? --Fabullus 08:40, 20 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

see the page Physica for an example. You'll notice the link to the latin wiki dictionary entry for the word (In this case the link takes you to the entry for chemia which has the same declension pattern.--Rafaelgarcia 16:16, 20 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

De verbis non iuxta sed infra imaginem ponendis

Quomodo faciam ut verba mea non iuxta sed infra imaginem ponantur? Vide, exempli gratia, hic et hic. Magnas gratias ago adiuturo.--Fabullus 11:04, 20 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Vide fontem huius paginae: Parallelogramma. Ibi in gubernando paginae compositionem peraccessi utendo formulis tabularibus.--Rafaelgarcia 13:57, 20 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Genus hormon- is, testoteron, - is etc

Could you please help me all these words of greek origin are masculins or neutrum? Thank you--Massimo Macconi 16:24, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)-- 16:21, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Secundum dictionaria varia quae possideo nomen hormon derivatum est a participio Graeco ὁρμῶν, ~ντος. Latine ergo appellandum videtur hormon, ~ntis, et id ipsum est forma quam invenimus in paginis peridodici Latini Ephemeridis, e.g. hic. Aliubi in hoc eodem periodico genus quoque huius nominis cognoscimus, legentes: "... hormon anno 1999 demum inventum, quod inter alia officia etiam hoc nobis affert, ... " Summatim: nomen hormon cui genetivus est hormontis genere est neutro. Nomina variorum hormontum (vel hormontium?) - ut etiam testosteron - exemplum sequi videntur ipsius nominis hormontis. --Fabullus 17:30, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Gratia tibi ago, nunc multae emendationes facere debeo, ciao e Buona Nale e un felice 2008--Massimo Macconi 22:00, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Noli festinare. Scire velim quid alii sentiant. Sunt quidem auctores quoque apud Ephemeridem qui genetivum faciunt hormonis (sine T): vide hic. Eligendum est nobis inter etymologiam (quae genetivum hormontis suggerit ) et usum actualem in linguis huius temporis ubi formas semper sine T invenimus. Quidquid tamen de hac re constituemus, id quoque spectabit ad nomen ion. --Fabullus 10:08, 22 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
In hac quidem symbola forma ablativi pluralis "hormonis" ter legitur et gen.pl. "hormonorum" semel, quod nominativum singularem "hormonum" indicare videtur, cum praeter exspectationem abl.sg. "hormone" legatur. Ergo varietas viget, et per me vigeat. --Neander 17:49, 22 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Felicem diem natalem

Ego vobis exopto felicem diem natalem et prosperum annum novum, etiam gratias vobis ago ob vestros adiutos mihi factos. And sorry for my bad Latin. :) Valete! --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 20:56, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Et gratias tibi ago et omnibus ob vestras labores et amicitias. --Rafaelgarcia 21:50, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Et quoque sint vobis omnibus Saturnalia optima!--Xaverius 21:54, 21 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Nomen Jan = Ianus?

Hic, fortasse auctoritate professoris Stroh, Jan Novák = Ianus Novák: cum Iano Novák musico Moravo 'with the Czech musician Jan Novák' (http://wiredforbooks.org/aeneid/). Etiam forsitan Ian, nomen Anglicum? IacobusAmor 18:23, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Nonne Ioannes?--Ioscius (disp) 18:56, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
vel "Ian, -is" --Usor ignotus.
Vel Ianis, -idis, e.g. Ianis Joplin? IacobusAmor 20:08, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Christi Natalis

Ego quoque volo vobis desidere felicem diem Christi Natalis!!! Ut Puer Iesus omnibus cordibus vestris nascatur!!!--Le K-li 01:14, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Luces Nativitatis
Multas gratias ago ^^ --Daniel bg 08:58, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Parvulus enim natus est nobis,
filius datus est nobis;
gaudete--Massimo Macconi 00:38, 25 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

christmas greetings

I like to wish all of you a merry christmas, Hendricus 17:19, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Felicem natalem! --Alex1011 19:44, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Pronuntiatio scholatica aut restituta?

Cum in Vicipaedia scribeo, mihi adhibendum est pronuntiationem scholasticam aut restitutam? In primis, cum litteram "V, v" adhibeo: debeo scribere <<vivere; valeo; caveo>> aut <<uiuere: ualeo; caueo>>? -- [Anon.]

Scribe, s.v.p., v consonans, u vocale: igitur valeo, vivere, caveo. Sed scribe i consonans et i vocale; igitur iam, iudex. De hac re vide Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine). Salve! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Possumus scribere v et u ubi restitutus modus classicus eundem consonantem /w/ sonat: suavis. Sequens modum tralaticium (sive Italicum, sive ecclesiasticum), scribe v ubi consonantem /v/ sonat, et u ubi vocalem /u/ vel consonantem /w/ sonat. —Mucius Tever 23:33, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)


Peto vos Marcum Terentium Bilbiophilum eligere Praemio Vicipaediano. Harrissimo 21:57, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC).


Hi, i am new to vicipaedia, and i'd like to contribute to the common latin knowledge ;) since i am a philosopher, i thought i could write something dealing with the subject, so i've started to write something about Leibniz; basically, i'd like to traslate from the english version into latin. Is this ok? :) scripsit Usor:Spiritus Eversor

Of course you are most welcome to add encyclopedic content to the page Godefridus Guilielmus Leibnitius. When adding content, please specify your source in the summary box (e. g. "from en:Gottfried Leibniz") and be sure not to copy copyrighted content without permission. If you need help or if you are unsure about something, please ask (the Taberna here is a good place for this). Welcome! --UV 23:12, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
And, by the way: Please "sign" your contributions on talk pages and in the Taberna with four tildes (~~~~). This makes it easier to see who said what. Thanks! --UV 23:12, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks ! Spiritus Eversor 12:55, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration of Cyrillic to Latin via Greek/Hebrew

(Sorry for using English, I can't speak Latin actively enough yet.)

As I have read at Vicipaedia:Translatio_nominum_propriorum#Translitteratio_seu_Romanizatio, proper names not originally written in the Latin alphabet are transliterated via ISO transliteration and then rid of diacritics. Greek and Hebrew names are exceptions because they already have a classical transliteration scheme for Latin (Translitteratio Linguae Graecae, Translitteratio linguae Hebraicae). Well ... do you know that nearly all letters of the Cyrillic alphabet are direct descendants of either Greek or Hebrew ones? Therefore we could invent a "classical" transliteration scheme for Cyrillic too, just replacing the Cyrillic letter with its Greek/Hebrew equivalent and transliterating this equivalent into Latin in the classical way. I tried to make a table of how such scheme would look like:


I don't know if this system is better than the current one; for example, the Ukrainian president Ющенко becomes Oistenco in it - instead of current Iuscenco. But I feel this possibility should also be considered. --Gabriel Svoboda 14:36, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a source for the use of this system, or are you proposing we incorporate original research? —Mucius Tever 02:58, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is an original research. But is there any system (including the currently used one) that is not? If so, let's use it and excuse my ignorance. --Gabriel Svoboda 07:34, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I think that Alexander has already been discussing on this matter. What does he think of this?--Xaverius 15:46, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Non stipulae

I have been adding {{Non stipula}} to some of the articles on Swedish "comitia" which only tell you the name and that it is a comitia of Sweden. This much can easily, I'm sure, be found on the page Suecia under the Comiatia section. I know some other vicipaedians do not like these, frankly pathetic, articles - created by early users probably just trying to boost page numbers. Do they class as non stipula? Do some object to me labelling them who think maybe that this gives the pages a chance to grow? Please say if you do and I'll remove them or we can discuss. Harrissimo 16:03, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

You are technically right. The example I saw also had a location map and a formula (list of counties) on it, but, yes, the text is minute. It's a very borderline case. These are slightly better than the kind of Non stipula that has no links to it and not much reason ever to grow. I think I would be sorry to see the entries deleted when, with little extra effort, a couple of useful details could be added (e.g. capital city? population?) and the border would be crossed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
In my view, these articles are valid stubs: They give an acceptable explanation of the lemma, and they serve to "unify" titles: If, e. g., the page Dalia were deleted, chances would be much higher that some pages that have to do with Sweden link to Dalia and others link to *Dalslandia and we would not notice, because both would be redlinks. As long as the page Dalia exists, people will correct redlinks to point to the existing page (or people will discuss moving the page). Furthermore, aside from the definition of the lemma, the pages contain relevant content (a locator map, categories, interwiki links). The only thing I wish these articles would additionally have is a reference to a source where the title is attested, but in my view these are nevertheless valid stubs and should stay. --UV 21:49, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew and UV. Yes, from the content it is poor because there is just one short sentence, the definition. However, this is what a beginner (in Latin) can manage. It is the frame for the content. See what someone had to create when he wanted to add a short information (= the "second sentence") about such a Swedish comitia:
  1. He has to know how to create a page.
  2. He has to know how to make the lemma bold.
  3. He has to know how to make links.
  4. He has to know how to make headlines.
  5. He has to know how to make interwiki links.
  6. He has to find the interwiki links.
  7. He has to know how to add categories.
  8. He should have an idea about our categories.
  9. He might even have to create the category, if there is no other page in this category.
  10. He has to know how to include a template.
  11. He has to know about our special templates.
  12. He has to know how to include an image.
  13. He has to loook for an image.
  14. He has to know about adding a description to an image.
  15. He has to add this description.
  16. He has to add the definition.
  17. He has to add the "second" sentence.

So he has to do 16 steps before he can add his piece of information. We should be aware that there are people who could do this step #17 but do not know how to manage the 16 steps before and we should appreciate if someone prepares an article for this 17th step, which could be the first step of a Latinist, but Wiki beginner. We should have tasks for the different levels of competency and we should have a concept how they can work together and how everybody can contribute what he can contribute. Who can make the framework should make the framework, who can make the content shall make the content. Users who can do both are especially welcome, of course. ;-) I think each page which defines a lemma and provides the technical frame for adding more content is useful. What I am sometimes/often missing, are the sources, like UV says. A valid definition with sources has a special value in this Wikipedia: Sometimes there is no need to prove that someone can write about something (= content) in Latin, but that we can can call it (= it's title, name) in Latin. So we should be happy even with pages which just name things. This Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias, but Latin is different, too. Providing a good framework for Latinist to add their "second sentences" might be of value for the project. Our situation is different from the English or German Wikipedia where some of the users are fanatically trying to create the better Britannica or the better Brockhaus. I think we should stay ambitious what concerns sources, correctness and scientificness, but we should stay patient what concerns the amount of content some articles provide. ;-) --Rolandus 13:04, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Rolande, I appreciate what hard work we need to even get a tiny stipula and, although these seem to have just been rushed pages, I will try to add the capita and numeri incolarum when I have the time so they at least give the reader something back. I'll remove the non stipulas now. Gratias pro responsis, Harrissimo 13:29, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
...but I notice UV has already done it! Thanks UV! Harrissimo 13:34, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
No, that was IacobusAmor's work, he also added an important detail: Those are the historical provinces (that still influence everyday life) but not the current administrative units of Sweden. Greetings, --UV 13:43, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Well thanks to Iacobe for adding that in - I will make sure all of the pages are now provinciae historicae, not comitia - and thanks to you for taking off the templates :) Harrissimo 13:58, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

I have added this comment to Harrissimo's page. --Rolandus 21:19, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Quid est stipula / pagina?

Please see this discussion: Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Stipulae#Quid_est_stipula.3F. --Rolandus 01:39, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

And this one: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina#Quid est pagina?. Harrissimo 02:39, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Frame, shot, sequence, scene

I am writing an article on film grammar, but I am having troubles coming up with a word for "shot". I don't know if a literal translation such as missus, -us would be the best approach, since the derivation of "shot" is kind of obscure anyway (perhaps since the first cameras looked like guns?). Even the OED doesn't offer me much help. But perhaps a word from a Romance language would help? Italian seems the best with inquadratura which derives from inquadrare from in quadri ("in a painting" I think). Would it be safe to borrow this word? I do have one other idea, though it's a reach. Film grammar is usually compared to language grammar (e.g. frame=letter, shot=word, scene=sentence, sequence=paragraph), so what if the same words (littera, verbum, etc.) were used metaphorically? Any other suggestions? -- Secundus Zephyrus 04:47, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the best word or words. But perhaps you should consider so perhaps shot = photographema, scene = scaena, sequence = series. Other words to ponder that might be relevant are "scaena" (scene) or "exceptaculum" (excerpt) or "articulus pelliculae" (joint or portion of film). In translating "still camera shot" remember "Photographia" (art photo) is distinguished from Photographema (photo picture). --Rafaelgarcia 07:13, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Enlarging Latin Vicipaedia

For your consideration: some reflections on how the Volapük Vükiped enlarged its number of articles:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volapük#Somebody_do_something.21 09:56, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the value in having many articles as an end in itself. Also latin does not lend itself to robotic translation. I would rather see a small complete, well-written encyclopeidia than a huge, badly written one.--Rafaelgarcia 14:31, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


Could anyone tell me which is the Latin for drainage basin?--Le K-li 13:55, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if there are better words but I would suggest "Area epotata" or "regio epotata" = "drained area" or "regio a fluvio epotata" = "region drained by a river"; I would also think that "vallis" = "valley" would work in most cases too, but not all valleys are drainage basins I suppose.--Rafaelgarcia 14:40, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it epotus, -a, -um -> area epota?
From Romanic languages: "bascauda hydrographica" --Alex1011 14:54, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I think yes both forms are ok. Epotus is the adjective whereas epotata is the participle. I don't know if bascauda is a good translation of basin though. What is your source? Trupmann dictionary suggests labrum for basin in the sense of reservoir. Even in english there seem to be a multitude of equivalent terms. Nevertheless, the way the article above is pitched drainage basin clearly refers to a geographical area.--Rafaelgarcia 16:00, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I simply thought bascauda -> bassin etymologically. For washing bassin I found also "aqualis". - According to my source "epotus" is already participle, but maybe that needs further research. --Alex1011 16:51, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes you're right. Both epotus and epotatus are listed as participle for epotare on Words. Regarding the best translation for basin, I too am confused. Different dictionaries give different translations. Perhaps the favorite word for this changed over time? I don't know.--Rafaelgarcia 17:33, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Bot command translations

Hi. Could anybody translate me these interwiki bot commands to Latin (they will be displayed in all interwiki bot summaries here instead English):

  • robot - robotum automaton
  • Adding: - addens (literally) but if saying "robbot adding:X" state this as "Robotum addit:X"
  • Modifying: - mutans (literally) but if saying "Robot modifying: X" state this as "Robotum mutat:X"
  • Removing: - abdens (literally) but if saying "Robot modifying: X" state this as "Robotum abdit: X"

Thank you. lt:User:Hugo.arg 13:39, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I added my shot. Robotum is glossed from Morgan. Notice that latin present tense in "Robotum addit X" has the same meaning as "Robot is adding X"--Rafaelgarcia 14:37, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Translation will be here: Idioma-bot (disputatio | conlationes) (robot Adding: lt:Inocentas II). I think translation Robot is adding (Robotum addit) would be ok. Thanks! lt:User:Hugo.arg 15:33, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, utimur (utbebamur ad minimum) automaton pro "bot". Est verbum sane classicius.--Ioscius (disp) 07:42, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ioscius is right that automaton would be an OK translation. But Morgan attributed Robotum to Carlo Egger, author of Lexicon Latinitatis recentis. That made me look into it a little deeper and I think that robotum means a robot in the primary sense (like an artificial human or android or slave) i.e. "a mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance." whereas automaton is more general, including automatic mechanical mechanisms, like a gas pump "automaton distributorium" (LRL also from Morgan). (English definitions from Free Online Dictionary) In other words, robotum evokes the idea of a human laborer with some measure of decision making ability while automaton evokes something automatic, mindless and limited. Both ideas apply to what a bot is. I don't see a preference.--Rafaelgarcia 22:18, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ad minimum, praeferentia sit usus quo solebamus uti, qui, quem dixi, est automaton. Est etiam, ut dixi, classicius (vero Graecius, sed quidquid id est) quam robotum (quod, mea quidem sententia, risibile est). Consentio putans Rafaeli quoque robotum potius referre automaton forma humanum. --Ioscius (disp) 06:05, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Consentio verbo automaton utimur cum bot ad Latinem vertamus. Sed nescio quod sentes robotum esse risibilem. Mea sententia robotum melius videtur cum robot sensu stricto vertamus. --Rafaelgarcia 16:19, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Quia etymologia Slavica est. Работать Russice valet idem ac laborare lingua nostra. Ergo est in eo modo sicut hitum quem Kedemus proposuit pro Anglico verbo "hit" sensu "hit song or album". Dissimilitudinem inter stultitias Kedemi et Caroli Egger hoc in casu non video.--Ioscius (disp) 16:56, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Mihi oportet magis de hoc commentari, quod suspecto fortasse hoc verbum esse unum e illis verbis internationalibus, ut videamus in variis linguis: [[:ar:روبوت]] [[:bn:রোবট]] [[:zh-min-nan:Robot]] [[:bs:Robot]] [[:bg:Робот]] [[:ca:Robot]] [[:cs:Robot]] [[:da:Robot]] [[:de:Roboter]] [[:en:Robot]] [[:et:Robot]] [[:el:Ρομπότ]] [[:es:Robot]] [[:eo:Roboto]] [[:eu:Robot]] [[:fa:روبات]] [[:fr:Robot]] [[:gl:Robot]] [[:ko:로봇]] [[:hr:Robot]] [[:io:Roboto]] [[:id:Robot]] [[:it:Robot]] [[:he:רובוט]] [[:lv:Robots]] [[:lt:Robotas]] [[:hu:Robot]] [[:nl:Robot]] [[:ja:ロボット]] [[:no:Robot]] [[:nn:Robot]] [[:nrm:Robot]] [[:oc:Robòt]] [[:uz:Robot]] [[:pl:Robot]] [[:pt:Robot]] [[:ru:Робот]] [[:sq:Roboti]] [[:simple:Robot]] [[:sk:Robot]] [[:sr:Робот]] [[:su:Robot]] [[:fi:Robotti]] [[:sv:Robot]] [[:ta:இயந்திரவியல்]] [[:th:หุ่นยนต์]] [[:vi:Người máy]] [[:tr:Robot]] [[:uk:Робот]] [[:ur:روبالہ]] [[:yi:ראבאט]] [[:zh:机器人]] --Rafaelgarcia 17:13, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
A robot seems to be no more than a machina servilis, or maybe just a servus. How are folks for whom 'bot' & 'robot' are robotum going to gloss 'nanobot'? For that sense, servus would easily offer servulus. IacobusAmor 17:51, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Nanorobotum...Robotum parvulum non est idem quam nanorobotum quod, sicut mica, sunt magnitudine nanometrorum. Item robotum non est idem quam servus mechanicus nec machina servilis, quod nonnulla robota, sicut androides Data in Itere Stellari, possunt esse autonomia et independentia. Ille Data non est servus.--Rafaelgarcia 19:07, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Immo, nego nanorobotum esse purum: si Anglicum robot generat Latinum robotum, certe nanobot (verbum "portmanteau") generat nanobotum, sed iterum pono recta verba "classicalia" esse servus ('robot') et servulus ('nanobot'). IacobusAmor 13:04, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Hanc perlegenti disputationem mihi videtur non satis iam cogitari de contextu verbi quo opus est. Num haec machina quae singulas Vicipaediae res e lingua in aliam vertit similiaque facit robotum est sensu proprio, i.e. homo artificialis? Nonne potius automaton est? --Ceylon 21:03, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Recte dicis, Ceylon, sed iam omnes consentimus verbo automaton utimur cum bot ad Latinem vertamus. Disputatio inceps supra est de utrum robotum vere valit ut nomem latinum legitimum. Homo artificialis mea sententia est alia res: potest esse robotum quod liberum arbitrium habet aut potest esse homo biologicus creatus in laboratorio (i.e. artificially gestated, genetically engineered, etc.., clone).--Rafaelgarcia 21:30, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Igitur omnia robota sunt automata, etsi non omnia automata sunt robota. Jackmitchell 00:08, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


[Copied from my user talk in case anyone wants to improve my suggested names of institutions -- or indeed translate the whole text! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC) ]

Goodday Andrew, can you help me with translating this peace of tekst? Hendricus 21:45, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

->Elliot was one of the founders of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the American Ornithologists' Union. He was also curator of zoologia at the Field Museum in Chicago.

Elliot used his wealth to publish a series of sumptuous color-plate books on birds and animals. Elliot wrote the text himself and commissioned artists such as Iosephus Wolf and Iosephus Smit, both of whom had worked for Ioannes Gould, to provide the illustrations.

The National Academy of Sciences awards the Daniel Giraud Elliot medal "for meritorious work in zoology or paleontology published in a three- to five-year period. Established through the Daniel Giraud Elliot Fund by gift of Miss Margaret Henderson Elliot."<-

Ofcourse i like to add these institutes: American Museum of Natural History; Field Museum (Chicago); American Ornithologists' Union; National Academy of Sciense en ofcourse the Smithsonian Institute, maybe you can help me with the titles, Hendricus 21:53, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I would say: Museum Americanum Historiae Naturalis, Museum Fieldianum Historiae Naturalis; Consociatio Americana Ornithologorum; Academia Nationalis Scientiae; Institutum Smithsonianum. I'm copying this to the Taberna and others may make better suggestions. I say Consociatio because we have avoided Unio in the past, I guess because it's a rare word in Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all above, except for Institutum Smithsonianum, which is written here (one of the institution's websites, in fact) as Institutio Smithsoniana. Harrissimo 20:10, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).


I'm interested rather in PIE than in Latin, because PIE according to Catholic visionary Anne Catherine Emmerich is Pre-Babel/Adamic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language/archive0 Thus my edit there was strictly PIE-related and occassional, because I'm mainly concentrated on PIE. 17:20, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

"Pre-Babel/Adamic"? Horrescimus putatu; nihilominus, commentaria de PIE hic sunt exoptatissima. IacobusAmor 18:26, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
The Proto-Indo-European language fragment is a linguistic construct inferred by means of the comparative method, the purpose of which is a formal demonstration of the fact that a set of (subfamilies of) languages may spring from a common source. Epistemologically, the problem is rather similar to that of codicology, i.e. relating a given set M of medieval and renaissance manuscripts (of, say, Plautus) by comparing members of M and detecting systematic similarities and differences between them. Basically the PIE language fragment is a tool for historical linguistics. It would be highly desirable to present the views of various "visionaries" (of which there's no dearth) under a separate heading and categorisation. Nor is alchemy treated under chemistry. --Neander 18:55, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Another desideratum would be an article on pie.--Ceylon 19:17, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Diu inceptionem in animo habebam...--Ioscius (disp) 21:11, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


Copied from Disputatio:Sequanus: I always thought that the French river Seine was called Sequana in Latin, as it was called by every ancient Latin writer from Caesar onwards. Sequanus I only knew as the singular of Sequani, a famous tribe in ancient Gaul. I do not exclude the possibility that at some time someone may have called the river Sequanus (although I would like to see the source), but even so priority should be given to Sequana. Could someone please interchange the article Sequanus and the redirection page Sequana? Thanks a lot. --Fabullus 14:07, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago! --Fabullus 16:05, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Polytonic Greek

Could someone please explain how to insert ancient Greek quotes into pages? The German Wikipedia has a readymade polytonic font below the edit window, but Vicipaedia doesn't (and, eheu, neither does the English Wikipedia). I'm aware that Anglo-Saxons tend to be brought up to believe that accents are a reactionary or at best superfluous arabesque never used by the real Greeks and invented by continental schoolmasters in order to make the language inaccessible to anybody but themselves. But I still can't bring myself to writing ancient Greek using a monotonic font.--Ceylon 15:14, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

This becomes easier if you have installed modern Greek keyboarding as an option on your computer. If you have, you can at least type all required letters except the "polytonic" ones. If you haven't, you can get all such letters from below the edit window.
Type all the letters you can in one of these two ways. For the letters that you can't type, you need to open another tab or window with your browser; in this new tab go to en:Polytonic_orthography#Examples_of_polytonic_characters. You don't need to open an edit window. Select each of the letters you want, in turn, one at once; copy it; and paste it into your edit page in Vicipaedia.
The normal font does not look very good with polytonic characters. For a slightly better-looking font, put your Greek text into a formula, thus: {{Polytonic|Γρέεκ}}.
Maybe UV or someone might know how to add polytonic Greek characters to the foot of our edit screen. That would be better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I added a number of characters to our edittools below the editing window. If you still miss some characters, please let me know which ones are missing! --UV 19:54, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks, UV. Unfortunately my browser (Internet Explorer, horribile dictu) does not display them though. Is there anything I can do about that other than changing my browser? It does display (most of) the characters in the German wiki by the way.--Ceylon 20:19, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I can see them! Marvellous, UV. Ceylon, might it be a question of purging your browser cache? I'm going to try them out here: ἀἁὰᾶἂἃἄἅἆἇ ᾳᾀᾁᾴᾲᾷᾄᾅᾂᾃᾆᾇ ἐἑὲἔἕἒἓ ἠἡὴῆἤἢἣἥἦἧ ῃῄῂῇᾐᾑᾔᾒᾕᾓᾖᾗ ἰἱὶῖἴἲἵἳἶἷ ὸὀὁὄὅὂὃ ῤῥ ὐὑὺῦὔὕὒὓὖὗ ὠὡὼῶὤὢὥὣὦὧ ῳῴῲῷᾠᾡᾤᾢᾥᾣᾦᾧ
Yes, they are all there. But there is just one point. In the four-character groups, within each vowel, in which rough-or-smoooth breathing is combined with acute-or-grave accent, they are not all in the same order. Since they are so tiny on the screen, it would be easier if they were all in the same order. The majority are in the following order: ᾤᾢᾥᾣ; if you managed to rearrange the following ἂἃἄἅ ᾄᾅᾂᾃ ἔἕἒἓ ὄὅὂὃ ὔὕὒὓ so that they were in the same order, that would be perfect. Does it make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I made another major change before reading the comments here. Unless you prefer the old edittools version (without dropdown box – then I can change it back), could you please tell me
  • whether you can see the polytonic characters now (and, in case you cannot, whether you can see them in the edittools on the German wikipedia), and
  • whether the order is fine now or not. If you would prefer a different order, please give me the entire line of polytonic characters in the desired order (I am using an old computer and I never see polytonic characters properly, therefore making these changes is a bit difficult for me). Thanks! --UV 21:10, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
OK, many thanks, UV. As far as I'm concerned, the drop-down box is fine ... The order I suggest for the whole polytonic group of characters is this. ἀἁὰᾶἄἂἅἃἆἇ ᾳᾀᾁᾴᾲᾷᾄᾂᾅᾃᾆᾇ ἐἑὲἔἒἕἓ ἠἡὴῆἤἢἥἣἦἧ ῃᾐᾑῄῂῇᾔᾒᾕᾓᾖᾗ ἰἱὶῖἴἲἵἳἶἷ ὀὁὸὄὂὅὃ ῤῥ ὐὑὺῦὔὒὕὓὖὗ ὠὡὼῶὤὢὥὣὦὧ ῳᾠᾡῴῲῷᾤᾢᾥᾣᾦᾧ Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:57, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Χάριν σοι ἔχω, ὦ ΟΥϜ! Herzlichen Dank, perfekt! My browser still opts for replacing the accented characters by boxes on the actual page and in the edit window (it does that on the German wiki, too), but I can clearly see the typeset below. And your old computer still refuses to display them? A job almost reminiscent of Beethoven composing symphonies he couldn't hear ... :) --Ceylon 22:06, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I arranged the characters in the order proposed by Andrew. Luckily, to handle computer software is a bit easier than to compose a symphony … If any other issues are still open, please tell me! --UV 23:58, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Nimia consilia

If someone (it would probably have to be one of the magistratus?) happens to feel sufficiently bored and confident to clear up the mess of 'Guidelines for Users' on here, he might run a chance of being abundantly rewarded in the afterlife. A lot of these pages overlap and/or are confusingly linked or otherwise interconnected: Vicipaedia:Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum, Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum, Vicipaedia:Ops nexusque usoribus novis, Vicipaedia:Latinitas, Vicipaedia:Gradus Latinitatis, Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani, Vicipaedia:A est B, Vicipaedia:FAQ etc. I would prefer a clear starting point with a list of links leading to clearly named pages. I also think that either the FAQ or the Main Page ought to spell out some of the motives behind the Latin Vicipaedia project (many people ask this question so it would be good to have a common reference - and maybe start a useful discussion). I noticed that the topic has come up in quite a few discussions (e.g. some contributions by Usor:Irenaeus), but I haven't found a page dedicated to this topic yet. I'm new, so please forgive if I have overlooked something.--Ceylon 22:50, 14 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

No, Ceylon, you are absolutely right... Most of this stuff is a complete mess... The staggering amount of links to these pages, and the, as you indicated, extremely boring nature of the project has kept progress on the simplification and unification of these pages rather agonizingly slow. I am sufficiently bored these next two weeks (school doesn't start til the 28th) so hopefully I can make some progress on this and our Vicipaedia:Porta eruditionis, which I've been meaning to fix for months now.--Ioscius (disp) 13:38, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Boring but full of merit and virtue - and isn't that what the Romans were all about? It might be wise, though, to propose a structure or, much more importantly, titles for the new pages on the Taberna before actually changing anything. --Ceylon 14:12, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
You know, I actually might start a new (temporary) Vicipaedia: namespace page for it. Something like Vicipaedia:Quidnam inferorum cum tantis paginis talibusque in spatio Vicipaediano?!. That way we can decide what to merge, what to erase, and what to redo without making the Taberna a mille passum long.--Ioscius (disp) 17:24, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Where would we have this page that would tie our rules together? I think that is the purpose of VP:PC and Vicipaedia:Salve, but they far too brief at the moment. I like the idea of having some pretty boxes rather than blocks of text to introduce our rules though. English has Wikipedia:Introduction and links from there which may also be an idea. Alternatively, we could sort our Vicipaedia: pages under titles or in a box by what they refer to e.g. pages (VP:HP, Vicipaedia:Stipula...), editing style (VP:APE, Vicipaedia:Pipe trick...), latin language (Vicipaedia:Latinitas...) - I'd also like to discuss on this temporary page you're making. Valete! Harrissimo 19:02, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
An overhaul and a reorganization of the contents in our Vicipaedia: namespace would be a great step forward. I particularly like the idea that one page should expressly state some of the main motives behind the Vicipaedia project.
Although its contents would need discussion, Vicipaedia:Mores Vicipaediae (Rolandus started this page a while ago) may provide an additional, interesting perspective on how we might organize our rules (and make them easily retrievable and accessible). --UV 20:58, 16 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Usor:Rolandus added some important points to this on my user page. A brief summary in English: Vicipaedia users fall into categories with very different backgrounds re. their Latin and wiki proficiency. There's no one introduction that could cater for all of them. Thus it's better to have a range of short interlinking namespace articles. This also comes in handy for settling recurring disputes by pointing to a clear reference such as Vicipaedia:A est B. Maybe a sort of namespace sitemap could be established at Vicipaedia:Salve. (Please correct if I missed something, Rolande). Commenting on this, I imagine something like a list of the main rules at Vicipaedia:Enchiridion auctoris with links to individual sites providing details and reasons. So individual users could consult language, style, or wiki advice in detail according to their needs, but there would still be a common port of call. --Ceylon 12:09, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that summary -- I find German rather hard going!
Thanks for the summary. Yes, my main point is, that we do not have a typical user, so we should provide different introductions to our collection. This makes it even easier because a specific introduction does not need to satisfy all demands, just the demands of a specific group. The several indroductions are just an envelope for the collection of "standard information" which is interlinked. Of course, our collection needs much cleanup and there are some introductions which might be rather useless and should be removed. --Rolandus 18:17, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
As you will know, a small selection of help pages is listed on the Pagina prima; these same pages are all linked together with a box at the top. The list of these pages is at {{Opes}} and the box (created to contain the list) is at {{Opesbox}}. Rafael, I and others have made sure that these few pages are in reasonable order and available both in Latin and English. In working on the namespace as a whole, you may well want to change this arrangement, or add to the selection of pages, or link them differently ... all is possible! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Cum recenseo commentaria

Cum recenseo commentaria, non iam video parvulas litteras Graecas, Russicas, macronizatas, etc., quae olim subfuerunt in pagina. Quo iverunt? Quando redient? IacobusAmor 13:35, 16 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ibi sunt, sed oportet botonem imprimire in laevo latere ubi dicit "Norma"; tunc in indice monstrato "Cyrillice" scrutandum est, vel "Graece", etc...--Rafaelgarcia 14:29, 16 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


For "restaurant" I found this, but which is the best?

ristorante: lauta caupona http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8704/lexicum/lexr.html

Taberna refectoria http://www.quaelibet.net/NotaeNet/N_r.html

restaurant: popIna f, caupOna, taberna refectoria http://wredmond.home.texas.net/rlittera.html

Restaurant: taberna deversoria (classical word with the comics)

Taberna restaurativa
my invention

--Alex1011 21:42, 16 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Eh, taberna is good, so is popina. Caupona is more of an inn, someplace where you can stay the night. If there's a table cloth I usually go with taberna, if it's just a quick stop like a sandwich place or burger joint I go with popina. --Ioscius (disp) 00:13, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Taberna restaurantiva is just reinventing taberna refectoria.
According to Traupmans's conversational latin and the Oxford Latin dictionary, caupona is the prefered translation for restaurant.
Both caupona and taberna mean inn/tavern, but taberna also means a shop/small store; so you would go to a taberna to buy jewelry but not to a caupona, where you would mostly go to stay the night. Now a taberna refectoria would be a shop were they specialize sell food of some kinds; cauponae apparently were inns with a nice sit-down restaurant or tavern. On the other hand, popina literally means a bistro, cook-shop, like mcdonalds.
So, taking these into account,
popina = low-end mcdonald's type restaurant;
taberna refectoria = smaller nicer stand-alone restaurant business;
caupona = high-end restaurant/inn.
taberna deversoria = hotel shop; which for many hotel may or may not correspond to the hotel restaurant, depending on the hotel.
--Rafaelgarcia 01:12, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Popina is a handy term because it really has no other meaning: it's a place where food is cooked for immediate eating. Its origin, incidentally, is as the Sabine equivalent of the pure-Latin coquina "kitchen". The word was borrowed from Sabine into Latin, some hundreds of years BC, for a kind of establishment that maybe the Sabines made fashionable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

For a place like that on the right hand side I think we need a term like taberna refectoria. Popina sounds for me somewhat low end, as Rafael mentioned, I am also not sure whether caupona isn't somewhat popular. Following the different vicipaedias, the modern "restaurant" is an invention of 19th century Paris, before, there was no free choice of meal and no individual service, the defining characteristics of "restaurant". --Alex1011 11:22, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the received wisdom currently. If I write Caupona or Popina I'll cite a Latin text, probably of the 2nd century AD, that depicts both free choice of meal and individual service! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Îles Marquises

Could anyone tell me how I can translate the words marquess and Marquesas Islands to latin?--Le K-li 03:25, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Marquess = marquis = Markgraf: Latin: Marchio, female Marchionissa. Insulae Marchianae? --Alex1011 08:39, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Treasure trove: English translation of Latin terms

Hi, can someone help translate the Latin terms "vetus depositio pecuniae" and "jus commune et quasi gentium" that appear in the English Wikipedia article "Treasure trove"? Please reply on that article's talk page. Thanks very much. — JackLee 03:34, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Ioscius (disp) 03:40, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Tregua aut Treuga?

I read some references to the expression Treuga Dei, which is supposed to be in Medieval Latin, however, the word "treuga" does not make any sense to me, isn't it tregua correctly? Because tregua is a Romance (Spanish/Italian) word coming from Gothic triggwa that means "treaty". --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 10:16, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

[2] Treuga dei, secundum Brockhaus. --Alex1011 10:49, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I had this discussion on the English Wikipedia too...all the references I have ever read about the Treuga Dei spell it treuga. Du Cange spells it treuga as well. One medieval author I have handy (Willelmus Tyrensis) spells it treuga. Apparently some Spanish and Italian historians use tregua but I have never personally come across that spelling. Adam Episcopus 21:06, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Martial law

Quaeso. Hi guys. I would appreciate help with translation of this wordterm or something like-'under rule by military' or 'rule of(country) under emergency situation' granting the ruler(pretender) dictatorship power'. Like what Darth Sidius/Emperor Palpatine did in Star Wars Gratias ago. --Jondel 11:34, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for martial law, Cassell's dictionary says that's ius belli or iura belli or lex belli. IacobusAmor 12:46, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
The Romans did not have our concept of "state of emergency" / "martial law" (arguably all Roman law was "martial"), so there is no clear equivalent. There is, however, a very close parallel, which is the appointment of a dictator rei gerundae causa. So "martial law" could be rendered as dictatura or dictatoria potestas. Ius belli on the other hand, is the law of declaring war (called ius ad bellum in modern international law) or of conducting war (modern equivalent: international humanitarian law), not something applying to rules of interior governance / policing. --Ceylon 13:07, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting, as Ainsworth's dictionary also defines martial law as lex belli. IacobusAmor 13:19, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I really have no idea about lex belli, Iacobe, I only meant to talk about ius belli. Is there a literary source for lex belli in that sense? I'd find that more convincing than a dictionary.--Ceylon 13:50, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Lex belli looks good. Ius ? like rights or justice? hmmm. I'll be using this for Ferdinandus Marcos. How does 'Declaravit legem bellium' sound? I'll check the notre dam latin dictionary for the grammar. In many dicattorships, the dicator blames or secretly creates an emergency or act of terror then declares a state of emergency and martial law. Thanks Jacob and Ceylon.-- 14:52, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)--Jondel 14:53, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, the right term is "ius bellum". In latin, lex means the product of a legislative act. So lex belli would mean the "law of war" or the "law governing how wars should be fought". However "martial law" is outside legislative acts, it is government by decree, or by might of the army, as it might occur during war. The roman concept Ius primarily means rights, but also includes laws of all types, because in the Roman mind the laws were the writing down of rights so that they could be uniformly adjudicated and protected. In the case of martial law what right are we refering to? The right of the military commander to ensure civil order by the use of the army. Ius bellum, by the way, would also include the right to wage war against the enemy.--Rafaelgarcia 16:06, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Gratias Rafael. In martial law, IMHO we refer to the right of the leader. The leader assumes power without consent of the constituents on the pretext that a state of war(or emergency) is occuring; often blaming a small incident(which the leader may have secretly created himself). In martial law there is only a pretense of rights being uniformly adjudicated and protected but not in truth. In reality the ruler is a dictator in the English sense. His power is supported by the military. There is no government but military might(the military is the covertly the government ). The dictator creates the law (martial law). --Jondel 16:32, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
That is true Jondel, but what you are describing is a very common instance in which martial law is abused. In time of war or a true emergency, then it is justified because the usual mechanisms wouldn't have time to work. --Rafaelgarcia 16:51, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Mmmh, since this is not the Volapük Wikipedia I guess we should at least try not to make up our own language. Ius bellum means the law the war, which is neither here nor there. As for declaravit legem bellium, declaro can be used for consuls, kings, victories, but not for laws, and bellium is ungrammatical. Coming back to ius belli, Cicero uses it twice: De leg. 2.34 and De off. 3.107 ("Est autem ius etiam bellicum fidesque iuris iurandi saepe cum hoste servanda"). It clearly means the law of war here, which is far from martial law. Much depends on what context you need it for, Jondel. But standing alone, I would still think dictatoria potestas comes at least a little closer to the concept. --Ceylon 17:12, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Re "Ius bellum means the law the war, which is neither here nor there."—I was reading it as 'pretty law'! IacobusAmor 18:51, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I didn't look at it carefully. I was thinking Ius bellicum = ius belli = right of war. But, fortunately, we are blessed by people such as Ceylon with their heads straight and who know more about Roman history to boot.--Rafaelgarcia 17:20, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I crossed out "bellum" in my comment above since it is wrong.--Rafaelgarcia 03:26, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Please, read again Ceylon's first note. In a situation of a political emergency or distress, dictatoria potestas is certainly the term that comes closest to what is meant by issuing an emergency decree or martial law. --Neander 04:53, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with dictatoria potestas as it applies to Caesar's time, but at the same time I'm a little uncomfortable assuming that dictatoria potestas does the job for the modern concept of martial law. Dictatoria potestas would seem to describe anyone who had the power to rule by decree, such as today Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but we wouldn't describe Venezuela today being under Martial Law....or in an emergency...So I think the issue needs more thought.
As Ceylon himself recognises, there is a difference, perhaps, between assuming dictatorial powers in an emergency and martial law as we have today. By dictatorial powers it is meant ruling by decree, no? And martial law being the enforcement of order by the army. Yet martial law can happen without dictatorial powers being assumed by anyone, for example, if a military commander takes over a flooded city. No one is dictating any law in that instance, it is just that the military commander giving orders to his subordinates who enforce his will at the point of a gun.
On the other hand, in attempting to capture the concept of martial law, Ius Belli would not seem to fit either, if the emergency were a flood that is not war related. . I think we need a term that means "emergency military administration" or "emergency military government" or something close to that.--Rafaelgarcia 05:41, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
In that case, if you want to avoid the ambiguity of circumlocution, such as rem publicam (in tempore belli / ob pericula) militibus committere (cf. Liv. 1.27.1) or summam imperii in manibus copiarum ponere, you're probably left with the unenviable option of using a neologism (ius Martiale being as good or bad as any other).--Ceylon 09:35, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone has a better name, ius martiale seems to do the job fine, I think.--Rafaelgarcia 14:12, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
If we borrow the term from other languages, why not "lex Martialis" (cf. Loi martiale, Ley marcial, Legge marziale)? Just asking. I'm no expert in juridical matters. --Neander 20:15, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
The reason for ius rather than lex is that lex in latin has a more specific meaning than in other languages. From what I have read in the dictionary of greek and roman antiquities, the term lex is limited to the product of legislative acts, by e.g. the senate or some other legislative body; ius on the other hand refers not only to laws (leges et plebescita), but also to common law (court traditions in deciding rights, both written and unwritten), and to rights of different kinds. Martial law isn't a lex in that it does not correspond to a legislative act but to an administrative one.--Rafaelgarcia 21:32, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

OK. Gratias ago ad Iacobi, Neander Rafael, Ceyolon and others. I will be using 'ius bellum ' and 'dicta dictum est' instead of declaravit. Hence ' Ius bellum dicta dictum est anno 19731972.--Jondel 06:21, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jondel, read the discussion carefully and think again. ;)--Ceylon 06:33, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ceylon, hi. Putasne de dictatoria potestas? Accordo namI agree but we have to translate what was openly declared. In truth , most of martial law situations nowadays are dictatorships but we have to use what was declared and not interpretations. If a dictatorship has a word democracy in the name of its nation, we have to translated literaly democracy even if we'd like to insert the translation of the word 'dictatorship' in the name. And so on and so forth. But of course modern translations may have to depart a bit from the old original definitions.Anyway, as Rafael says, lex is a product of a legal authority/body. If need be we can vote to be sure of concensus. --Jondel 14:43, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
My only worry was about the grammar: If you want to say 'the law of war', you have to put 'war' in the genitive -> ius belli (ius bellum, as Iacobus has pointed out above, is beautiful law). If you feel uneasy about using dictatoria potestas (although the Latin dictator has a very different meaning from the English derivative), I would still think ius Martiale is a better choice than ius belli.--Ceylon 15:18, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ius Martiale does look better since the Martial derives from Martiale. belli(genitive) is of course better. --Jondel 15:28, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


How would one say 'teddy bear' (as in - small stuffed bear-shaped fluffy toy) in Latin? Stupid question, isn't it? Thanks in advance, cheers, Ouro 15:46, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

ursus theodoricus or ursus Thaddeus...see Ursus (discretiva). -- Secundus Zephyrus 15:55, 18 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Morgan gives Ursulus lusorius, I was thinking more Pupa ursina. Whence came theodoricus/thaddeus?--Ioscius (disp) 18:08, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Well, theodoricus makes literal sense, since the Teddy Bear was named after Theodorus Roosevelt. But as for whether it was sourced anywhere...I have no idea. -- Secundus Zephyrus 18:26, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I understand that, but... I've already asked Rolandus (who wrote theodoricus) whence he got that form, and am awaiting a response. In the meantime, let's look at the interwikis: [[:bg:Плюшено мече]] [[:da:Teddybjørn]] [[:de:Teddybär]] [[:es:Osito de peluche]] [[:fr:Ours en peluche]] [[:hr:Plišani medo]] [[:id:Teddy bear]] [[:is:Bangsi]] [[:it:Teddy Bear]] [[:he:דוב צעצוע]] [[:hu:Plüssmackó]] [[:ms:Beruang Teddy]] [[:nl:Teddybeer]] [[:ja:テディベア]] [[:no:Teddybjørn]] [[:pl:Miś (zabawka)]] [[:pt:Urso de pelúcia]] [[:ru:Плюшевый мишка]] [[:simple:Teddy bear]] [[:fi:Teddykarhu]] [[:sv:Nallebjörn]] [[:ta:டெடி கரடிக்குட்டி]] [[:th:หมีเท็ดดี้]] [[:zh:泰迪熊]]. It would seem, then, that Germanic languages favor Teddy+native word for bear, while romance and slavic languages favor the word for bear (sometimes diminutive, sometimes not)+the word for plush. For our part, I think the diminutive makes a great deal of sense (as does, as I have noted, David Morgan). Now plush derives from the vulgar Latin word piluccare, so we would be looking at Ursulus piluccatus, but piluccare actually means "to remove hair" so our teddy would be chihuahuaish! one of the other languages have the semantic "play" in their name for teddy bear, so I wonder whence Morgan got lusorius. I mean the sense is plain enough: ursulus lusorius = little bear with which you play, which is certainly exactly what a teddy bear is.--Ioscius (disp) 18:49, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
OHHH! Maybe I do know where Morgan got lusorius... I din't even think of it at first, but my grandma used to call it orso giocattolo or "little play bear"...--Ioscius (disp) 18:51, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I wrote those sentences, but I do not think I created them, maybe I have cleaned up some pages and got the text from there. But {{PONS-Egger}} gives: Teddybär ... ursulus panneus, m; vgl. PAUL. NOL., carm., 24, 327; ~ panniceus; vgl. ISID., orig., 19, 22, 24 --Rolandus 12:06, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Wow... thanks, guys! --Ouro 13:20, 27 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Nomina Pellicularum

The current rule seems to be, translate film titles into Latin, but according to Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum:

"Si opus scriptum est in alia lingua, et versionem Latinam non cognovimus, nomen suae linguae utere. (Da versionem post mentionem primam si potes.)"

Therefore, shouldn't all the page titles be in their respective languages with a Latin translation given in the article? (especially since I don't think any films' titles have ever been "officially" translated into Latin) -- Secundus Zephyrus 19:18, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold in correcting anything that seems inconsistent or contradictory to the rules. This is a wiki, after all. –Mucius Tever 01:22, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
That only applies to written work, ie. opera scripta. For other works the third rule on the same page: "Si opus aliarum artium est neque litterarium (ut sculptura), verte nomen vulgare vel usitatum si potes, et adde nomen originale post mentionem primam" id est Anglice:If the work is not a piece of writing (such as a sculpture), translate the original or usual name if you can, and give the original name after first mention." A movie is not writing so according to the present rules, we try to translate.--Rafaelgarcia 22:59, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, when I wrote that rule I had forgotten about things like television. The original intent was that items with linguistic content should bear the names the author gave them, while items without linguistic content could safely have their names translated. The reasoning is that in a work with linguistic content, the name is part of that content, and anchored to it–the translator may change it substantially when translating the work, so its name in Latin (or any other language) cannot be assumed to follow on from its name in its original language (Ab Urbe Condita does not mean History of Rome, nor does Schiffbruch mit Tiger mean Histoire de Pi). If the work is without other linguistic content, however, the name doesn't have a context relation to any words in the work, but is either a description or a statement of some kind, neither of which would be expected to change substantially when brought into another language. I wrote the rule poorly, but Secundus Zephyrus has interpreted it in the way it was intended. –Mucius Tever 01:22, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

video games

Yes, I thought that might have been the case, but then shouldn't Ludi computatrales: be translated? Because right now they're all in English... -- Secundus Zephyrus 00:51, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

The quality of things here is very uneven. I wouldn't take anything on any page here as very strong support for anything anywhere else, but let every case stand on what merits it has itself, and hope those merits spread. –Mucius Tever 01:22, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ludi Computatrales are a borderline case; they are not, strictly speaking, works of art so not covered by the rules concerning works of art above. (Of course they do incorporate works as part of the program but they are not art per se.) Because they are comercial software programs, however, their names are trademarks. And for trademarks we don't translate the lemma but often provide a translation in parentheses. (Marca mercatoria non vertenda sunt. Quorum etiam, si potes, adde versionem in parenthesi./Trademarks are not to be translated. Here too, if you can, give a translation.)--Rafaelgarcia 01:28, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
A note, also, on the particular example of video games: a lot of the English titles are already translated from Japanese...--Ioscius (disp) 04:23, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Do you think they should be in Japanese? And if so, should they be transliterated or not...? Take The Legend of Zelda for example, should the title of the page actually be "ゼルダの伝説" or "Zeruda no Densetsu" or "The Legend of Zelda" or "Fabula Zeldae"? -- Secundus Zephyrus 06:27, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I would do: use the original title, and if it's in Japanese, so be it! But then, I never write articles about computer games. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Our rule ad minimum is to always transliterate a name even if we don't translate, which is a common enough rule in all wikipedias, and give the original name in parenthesis.
But again there is actually no clear rule here, only that our custom has been to use the english name of the game as the "translitteration", probably because that the english name also universally used in Europe including Rome, presumably. I think this custom should be kept, since it is quite universal across european wikis, but we also include the original japanese name and a translation in parenthesis.--Rafaelgarcia 21:13, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Xkoski = Xae torrens?

I don't possess the Kalevala Latina, so I cannot say whether this is consistent throughout the book but from what I was given on Tyrjänkoski (Tyrjae torrens) is it possible for places ending in -koski in Finnish to become gen. + torrens in the Finno-Latin declension system (Anjalae Torrens, Imatrae Torrens etc.)? If he does this regularly in the book of course, that is even better. (Of course I could say Tyrjankoskis in the genitive but Tyrjae torrens is much more latin-looking). On this point, we do not yet have an official page for the declension of Finnish names (just a table and various discussions) and there are also Polynesian and Greek systems which are in use but aren't yet linked at TNP. Harrissimo 17:01, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Re: -koski → -ae torrens – I would probably not recommend it on that example alone. The source is, after all, a work of poetry, so poetical concerns may have figured. Also, I don't know if it makes as much a difference in Finnish as it would in, say, English, but Anjalankoski and Imatrankoski seem to be written as one word, while the Kalevala, if Google is any judge, has Tyrjän koski as two (which would certainly have influenced the translation as well). –Mucius Tever 23:27, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to find another -koski example from the online version and ask Iustinus to look it up in Kalevala Latina. Harrissimo 23:39, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
The only other is Katrakoski but if he writes Katrae torrens makes it a consistency at least. I think you're right about Tyrja being a special case (it is not called Tyrjankoski in the English translation, but "falls of Tyrya"). But we shall see. Harrissimo 23:55, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
Quaeso, Harrissimo, quid est TNP? --Fabullus 19:28, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
VP:TNP. Harrissimo 19:30, 20 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Sure enough, Kalevala Latina 3.180 (p. 34): Kaatra torrens Carelorum. Muke does have a point, though, about the demands of meter. --Iustinus 21:39, 28 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll keep towns with -koski intact and translate if I am talking about some actual torrents (which will be very rarely in any case). Thanks for searching, Harrissimo 21:58, 28 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).


Hi Andrew. How would you say: C is the most (numerous)of the languages being spoken? --Jondel 14:55, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ex omnibus aliis linguis in Philippinis acceptis usitatissima est Cebuanensis. Literally "Of all the other languages spoken in the Philippines, Cebuano is the most used." (In English, inserting the word "other" in this sentence is an illogicality, but in Latin I think it's OK.) That's my first try. I'll put this on the taberna: others will correct me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:21, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Gratias ago! I 'll be using Ceylon's version to express that 'some people believe it to be so', if you don't mind.--Jondel 08:37, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I simply translated the sentence you gave me, but I suspected you really wanted the other one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Novus titulus paginae primae

ex pagina disputationis de Ssolbergj

That looks fantastic, Well done! Is it possible to change the 'k' to a 'c'? (A lot of people have been confused by this before and Vicipaedia is the official name. Thanks, Harrissimo 17:44, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

It does look fantastic... sort of... and there's the matter on the c, which Harrisimo has pointed out. But I was wondering (sorry, I've been out lastly)... has there been any discussion on changing it? last time we had a month long discussion on the "new Pagina Prima". And on the image chosen... I think it is misleading (so it was the Capitoline she-wolf) because we're not a Roman but a Latin wiki... sorry to be the bad guy :(--Xaverius 18:13, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
But it did need saying, Xaveri. I think the Taberna's the best place for this. Harrissimo 18:24, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I don't want to be negative either -- I like it. But I reverted the formula just temporarily, because I feel it's too confusing to have our name misspelt at the top of the pagina prima. But Ssolbergj's work is all still there in the history, ready to be used! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
The new one is up now... but is everyone happy with Caesar standing there? I don't really know what other sort of symbol you could use to show non-Roman (as well as non-christian) latin. But I'm not complaining myself. Harrissimo 19:56, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I have no problem with the statue...I mean, this Wiki is based on classical Latin, right? I don't see why we should be "politically correct" toward other variations of Latin. The question I have is about the photo itself...the photo isn't copyrighted is it? I just wanted to make sure because I know internet copyright laws are strange, and I don't think it would be in our best interest to be sued. -- Secundus Zephyrus 21:40, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
The original one is just a normal photograph with a normal non-copyright license[3]. Harrissimo 22:50, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
Other wikis I've checked don't have an image there, but if an image it is, I like the statue. The invitantur underneath should be made to reappear though. Incidentally, I've always wondered about the Nunc sunt ... paginae. This seems a little vague ("Now there are ... pages" - of what?). Wouldn't Nunc complectitur ... paginas or Adhuc habet ... paginas be nicer?--Ceylon 20:10, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Either of what you suggest would be fine, I think. to me, "Adhuc habet ..." sounds the nicer of the three. By "paginae" we really mean "articles" but there was disagreement about which word bests translates "article"; I think either commentarium or commentatio would be more exact.--Rafaelgarcia 00:15, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
It is really nice and we have to thank Ssolbergj for his efforts in creating this. However, I wish we could figure out a way to keep the text from getting lost behind the statue--at least that is what is happening for me in firefox and also konqueror. Does that also happen in explorer?--Rafaelgarcia 00:01, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Omnes ut contribuant invitantur!"—Cassell's ait propriam rationem loquendi verbum invitare esse "invitare hominem ad rem," cuius puto formam passivam esse "homo invitatur ad rem," et nostram igitur invitationem melius esse Omnes ad contribuendum invitantur. IacobusAmor 00:58, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ita quidem! Sed interdum ut finali utitur etiam Cicero (sicut de orat. 2,75 cum Hannibal ... invitatus esset ab hospitibus suis, ut eum ... audiret). --Neander 02:11, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


O ademptionem! Lupa nostra fuit carissima cordi meo... non mihi est res maximi monenti qua forma lupa habeat, sed multo careo et desidero lupam nostam bellam redditam fore... Nolite me censere errare fallive, imago etaim melior est priori, at iterum dico lupam symbolum esse mihi delicatum.--Ioscius (disp) 06:13, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else misses our wolf?--Ioscius (disp) 20:59, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Non ego... Harrissimo 21:02, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I like the statue and the lupa. I think the statue is nice on the pagina prima but too assertive to be used as our logo generally. I've just tried putting the lupa in the "porta eruditionis" box as an experiment. I wonder if the lupa could serve as a logo, e.g. on the porta eruditionis pages (now developing), or perhaps elsewhere in Vicipaedia. I don't want to lose her. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:59, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Breast-feeding little Romans-to-be? How opportune for the Porta Eruditionis then ... :)--Ceylon 22:02, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
One of the things about replacing the image of the chalkboard with the wolf is that it doesn't attract visual attention to the Porta... (given the state the Porta is in, that might not be the worst thing... I'm still meaning to hop on that in some form, but the chalkboard was great) --Ioscius (disp) 07:01, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I had a similar association ... ;-) — The wolves? The statue looks good and interesting but it is not a specific symbol for Latin either. Could be a symbol for arts or history as well. I liked the wolves a bit more. A bit. ;-) --Rolandus 22:27, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
As Andrew said, the statue is too assertive. And a bit too pompous to my taste. I'm with Ioscius in this matter. --Neander 22:51, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Moi aussi. Servetur nostra lupa! IacobusAmor 00:11, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Si sentient signum Caesaris nimis gloriosum esse, fortasse summum replum(?)(quod dixit Vicipaedia et despectus in mundum monstrat) servare et lupas restituere possumus? Sed incertus sum signum Caesaris absurde esse pomposum. (If you all feel that Caesar's figure is too ostentatious, perhaps we can keep the top bar (that says Vicipaedia and looks onto the world) and restore the she-wolfs beneath? But I am not sure that the symbol of Caesar is inappropriately pompous.) --Rafaelgarcia 00:51, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Coram me mihi placet quomodo pagina prima nunc apparet signo Caesaris supra et lupa in loco Portae Eruditionis. (Personally it pleases me how the pagina prima now appears with Caesar's figure above and the shewolf in the Porta Eruditionis.)--Rafaelgarcia 01:00, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I very much like the top bar, it looks great. What about trying the same thing, but with one she wolf in place of the statue? I agree that the statue is a bit too pompous. Nam haud sumus imperatores, immo sumus statu aequales, paresque officio!--Ioscius (disp) 07:01, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Alia possibilitas est lupis supra uti et signo Caesaris infra in loco Portae Eruditionis. Caesar, quod sub lupis sit, non tantum pomposum videtur.(Another possibility is to use the she-wolfs above and the figure of Caesar below in the Porta Eruditionis. Caesar, because he would be below the she-wolfs, would not appear so pompous. --Rafaelgarcia 03:24, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I have just reverted the she-wolf being put in the top corner because it is not transparent like Caesar (and so it didn't look very good). If somebody knows how and can tell me, maybe I can make it so. Of course, I won't mind if somebody wishes to re-revert - it just looks bad (sententiā meā). Harrissimo 22:46, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I agree that it did not look too good. In order to make the background of the she-wolf image transparent, it would be necessary to edit the image using an image editing program and to reupload it to commons under a different name. --UV 23:04, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to make it transparent through Inkscape? That and Microsoft paint are the only editors I know my way around. Harrissimo 23:19, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
Egomet censeo et sine imagine iucunde atque summa aequabilitate vivi posse, praesertim cum et ceterae Wikipediae sigla nationalia eaque in prima pagina posita respuere videantur. Semper autem custodiat lupa quasi alma mater Eruditionis portam!--Ceylon 06:53, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ita, et optimum locum statuae praebebit pagina imperatori nostro dedicata. Neander 14:02, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought: What about a dog as a mascot? Might be a better symbol for our Latin than Caesar ...--Ceylon 22:25, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Please explain the special relation between dogs and Latin :-) Why not rabbits or butterflys?--Rolandus 22:35, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Maybe dog Latin?     :–)   --Neander 22:57, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ouch--Rafaelgarcia 23:02, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


For my part, since what we write comes nothing close to De Bello Gallico, what we write are more commentationes . . . --Ioscius (disp) 06:07, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


Si recte aestimo, pagina (vel commentatio) numero 18,000 fuit "Sinus Guantanamus", a Rafaele incepta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


In commentariis de Stephano Colbert et Ioanne Stewart, noster declarat verbum Statiunitensis esse accommodatum ad hanc encyclopaediam. Secundum capsam "quaerere," verbum non invenitur alibi in Vicipaedia. Quid putatis vos? IacobusAmor 18:12, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Statunitensis (slight difference of spelling) appears at Arabia Saudiana and Disputatio:SCDI, so Google tells me. It also appears at Cinematographia, though Google failed to spot it there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
De Arabia Saudiana, Google tibi mentitum est. In disputatione de SCDI, vide quaestionem: "'Statunitensis gubernatio et Statunitenses sanitariae ordinationes'? Quod significat hoc mirabile verbum?" IacobusAmor 16:41, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)" Ha! IacobusAmor 01:25, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
"Statunitense" is the italian word for "american" (from "stati uniti"), like "estadounidense" in spanish (from "estados unidos"). So "Statunitense" fits right in with people calling the US "Uniti Status").
One point of view, therefore, is that the preference for the form derived from the Romance languages is understandable because "Americanus" will always suffer from the trouble that "America" is also the name of the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
Yet most people in romance speaking countries only use "Americano" to only mean "cives CFA" anyway, and use a longer phrase to mean the continent and peoples of the Americas. Thus another point of view is that "Status Uniti" really is awful latin for CFA and let just stick with our guns and insist on decent latin, running roughshod over those clinging to their romance language preconceptions.:)--Rafaelgarcia 20:46, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
And further, what do south Americans call themselves? Does a guy from Columbia call himself a Columbian or an Americano/sud Americano? A guy from El Salvador Americano or Salvadoreno? North America too... I've never once heard a Canadian call himself American. In English, American can be a substantive for a CFAer, or, if in a different context, an adjective defining a more specific geonym. I agree with Rafael this is a somewhat silly question (though it's not the first time it's been raised), and with all who think that to use a form based off Stati Uniti (from which I personally spent HOURS ridding Vicipaedia...) is barbaric.--Ioscius (disp) 20:59, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear. Harrissimo 21:07, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
Well, instead of Status uniti one could use civitates foederatae. In English as in other languages, there is the solution of "US-American", but this is somewhat difficult to render in Latin. As far as I know, in international organisations, in English, they do not say American but US: US-GDP and so on. I also know of some Americans (outside US), who do not want the term "American" for "US". --Alex1011 23:08, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)


Does this word exist in Latin? There is a Spanish word, plática, that means "conversation", and Royal Spanish Academy's Dictionary says that it comes from Latin "platica". Though, I have never seen this word in Latin. May it be a Greek loanword? --Mexicanus   (scribe!) 21:47, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Tried to look in Corominas' diccionario etimológico but there was no entry for platica. Nevertheless, let me venture a guess. If platica comes from Greek, the appropriate word would be (adj.) platikós which means both 'general' and 'detailed', depending on context; e.g. platike exegesis 'detailed explanation'. Platicus occurs in late Latin as an astrological term, meaning 'general, non respiciens partes minores'. In medieval manuscripts, platicus tends to be confused with placitus, which may indicate something more than only a mechanic lapsus calami. So, maybe platica has resulted, in Hispano-Latin, from a contamination of the two, Greek giving the form, and Latin placitum, the meaning. However, this is all very speculative. --Neander 23:55, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Lewis & Short give platice as a post-classical word derived from the Greek. (And of course the Grecizing -e corresponds to a standard Latin -a). –Mucius Tever 03:47, 25 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Maximas gratias vobis ago pro explicatione. --Mexicanus