Knowledge talk:WikiProject Latin/Archive 2

3969:

caution against, however, is using macrons for anything other than indicating pronunciation. Classical Latin didn't generally use macrons; there were multiple ways in which long vowels could be indicated, but none of them were universally adopted, and in modern orthography Classical Latin is only written with macrons, breves, or similar marks in grammars and dictionaries to indicate pronunciation; they do not appear in ordinary text. Our article on Medieval Latin doesn't mention macrons; the one on Ecclesiastical Latin says that it uses acute accents instead of macrons, to indicate stress. I would say that if an original text or inscription contains such marks, you probably should include them when quoting that text; but if not, then don't supply them unless you're giving a pronunciation—which you rarely will except in the first sentence of the lead.

2416:

Here the square capital writing has been proposed. But I say these considerations. Square capitals were most often carved onto stone. But this type of writing (let's say "font" in modern terms) was not the only and exclusive way. Even if we look at the late Classic era there have been preserved quite a lot of papyri with Roman cursive from the beginning of the I millennium, and it seems to be the predominant everyday way of writing of Latin as it's much easier and economical than capitals. Then, most Latin works were preserved neither in Roman cursive nor capitals but in many other book-hands of the post-Roman era which resemble and in fact are the predecessors of the modern minuscule writing. For me it seems quite

1053:

doesn't even seem to be an old expression, just a modern translation of "watch your language" or "hold your tongue" into Latin. Unless there's evidence of widespread usage (not merely that it's possible that German physicians might say it in peculiar circumstances), it doesn't require inclusion in English Knowledge. If it conveyed any unique meaning (as opposed to merely translating a common expression) or had some historical importance (such as an often-quoted saying of Cicero, or being illustrated in a famous mosaic unearthed at Pompeii), then inclusion might be justified. Merely being included in a long list of things you might say in Latin, however, isn't really enough.

1754:. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off). 4540:, which has several possible meanings. "Pious" is the most literal meaning, or at least the most familiar in English, but "dutiful", "blessed", and "holy" are all among the possibilities—the latter two making more sense in this context. "Dear" is a possible translation, but might be misinterpreted as a form of address, rather than a description of virtuousness. "Sweet" and "merciful" would seem to be equivalent phrases, but not translations. However, it would be correct to begin with "O", since the phrase is vocative, and the speaker is thus addressing Jesus directly. It's not 3385:, of which Caesar's is actually more prominent than this, probably accounting for most of the instances). It's tempting to use a title that the poem "should" be called by, since it would be a more accurate description of the work; but the general policy in Knowledge is to give articles on literary works the name by which they're best known in English. In this case, that's clearly the present title, both because it's been published under that name for a long time, and is mentioned by that title in many other works, including reference works, and also because 3105: 31: 3374: 4428: 3760: 4853: 4661:

the great-grandson, who shouldn't have the same name as his great-grandmother. If Mindia Paetilla isn't the great-grandmother, then who is she? Is it possible to figure out the relationships between the people in this inscription from grammar and syntax? I could just say that they're all "mentioned" in it, but that's not very satisfactory—and the fact that I can't be sure if there are one or two people named Lucius Titiedius Flaccus makes it worse.

1977: 4973: 2737:, with no distinction in mid vowels. However, the pronunciation guides I've seen have been in English, and English speakers are unlikely to be able to produce the distinction between close-mid and open-mid vowels. Italian, on which Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation is based, does have a distinction between close-mid and open-mid vowels in stressed syllables (I think), and this makes it likely that Ecclesiastical Latin has the same distinction. 2537: 5104: 4351: 4270: 4193: 4134: 4052: 3993: 3666: 3576: 3196: 3010: 2951: 2072: 2032: 388:

most familiar on google searches (although there are a few for the variant with "i", too). Because of course a more hits in google does not mean something is more true, I'm now doubting what the correct term is: "mobilis in mobili" or "mobilis in mobile"? So is one of them correct and the other false, or are both correct forms of the same meaning? Or even with different meanings? (compare

2235:

confusing to modern readers (perhaps not to specialists, but I find them distracting myself). I try not to be dogmatic about pronunciation; as a recent note I came across while looking for an answer for the plant question above said, there are many ways for English speakers to pronounce Latin, and even in classical Latin there are disagreements about pronunciation.

2553:'s point that it would be unauthentic for Cicero's works. However, among all contemporary scripts, it is the only one in which every letter would be readily understandable to every reader, and it is the writing for which the reader would be most likely to accept that U and V are represented by the same letter. One disadvantage is, as 2449:: it wouldn't be legible to most readers since letter forms differ so much from modern letterforms, and it would require special fonts that most readers would not have. Square capitals may be the only Classical Latin "font" that is legible to modern readers, and they only require special fonts in the cases of 1545:

My hunch is that it might even be 20th century. If true, that could explain the lack of helpful expansions of the abbreviation. P.S.: biologists seem to be generally quite dreadful at Latin, lurking in their offices with posters on the wall that say things like "nil illegitimum carborundum", so I suspect that

2805:

as open-mid. However, Ecclesiastical Latin doesn't even mark long vowels, and a distinction can't be made when it isn't marked in spelling. Thus, while Italian speakers pronouncing Classical Latin (which does have macrons) might make this distinction, Italian speakers pronouncing Ecclesiastical Latin

1874:

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Knowledge struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for

118:

I don't understand the zeal that some users have for deleting articles in subjects they don't know much about. It would be more productive to write and expand on the subject rather than delete that which was begun by others. Perhaps you will find a more valuable use of your time on expanding stubs.

2425:

as most likely he might have written in cursive as well. And both Roman cursive and post-Roman book-hands in many respect are similar to our minuscule, which we are to disregard here. Not to mention that most Latin texts became to be known for the wider public through the help of the Blackletter and

2246:

As for the original question, small caps, I sometimes use that when quoting inscriptions (or giving examples as if they were inscriptions). But again, I try to avoid anything that non-specialists wouldn't expect. And to be honest, I think that whether to use small caps is probably best left to the

103:

I get the feeling this project page isn't viewed too often, but just to leave an update, another user suggested to me that rather than delete the articles I expand to include defintions and have the various stubs redirect here. So thats my current mission. Any help would be appreciated. If you need

3865:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

2415:

I'd say not an objection but an opinion as I still rarely edit articles concerning Latin and I do not much worry about the style standards. The main driven motive of the proposed standardisation as I understand is to represent Latin as authentic as possible and creating a "feeling" of the language.

1544:

as "rejected name"; the official translation is "suppressed name" and the meaning is that botanists when they come across that name are instructed to ignore it. I'm not sure when the concept of suppressed combinations first arose in the code of nomenclature, so I'll see if I can trace that history.

1052:

Just because somebody says it doesn't mean that there needs to be an article written about it. The number of things you can say in Latin (or any other language) is practically unlimited, and the fact that you might say some things more often than others doesn't make them notable. In this case, it

4660:

be the same person, but that's not clear either; the second one has a filiation and isn't called "Petronianus"). And who's Numerius Mindius Paetus? Is he Mindia's father? Seems unlikely that he could be her husband, since they share both nomen and cognomen, and just as unlikely that he could be

387:

that the motto of Captain Nemo/the Nautilus is "mobilis in mobili". But there were often heavy errors in the editions of Jules Verne books, so I'm wondering if that could be another one, too, and also I thought in the past that that latin "saying" is rather "mobilis in mobile", and that is what is

79:

With a mind to improve the coverage of Latin on Knowledge, I opened the list of stubs tagged as Latin-related articles. It seems to me that a good number of them are pages that merely define a Latin phrase and give a sentence or two of background information. I don't want to step on anyone's toes,

3968:

Not sure of the context in which you mean to use it. Obviously not in your personal life, since that would be entirely your choice, so somewhere on Knowledge. In that context, I would say that you should use whichever variety is most relevant to the article you're working on. One thing I would

2247:

preference of the writer. As long as the use of small capitals doesn't become distracting, confusing, or make the article harder to read, as it would with long passages or frequent shifts between small caps and normal text, I believe it's best thought of as an option, rather than a requirement.

2420:

to write, say, Cicero's works in square capitals of stone inscriptions if we know that first remained manuscripts with Cicero are written in later Uncial and other mediaeval book-hands. We may, of course, postulate and retrospect that Cicero might have written in capitals, but it rather would be

1992:

is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating

4650:

L(uci) Titiedi Flacci / Petroniani / Mindiae Paetil/lae N(umeri) Mindi / Paeti pron(epoti) s(acrorum) p(ub)l(icorum) R(omanorum) / pr(aecepto) pont(ificis) m(aximi) cur(atoris) sacel(lorum) p(ublicorum) // L(uci) Titiedi L(uci) f(ilii) Flac/ci / Mindiae Paeti/llae / pronep(otis) / ossa / vixit

2234:

For passages written in Latin, I usually use normal English rules of capitalization and forgo diacritical marks or special characters. If I'm not mistaken, these were never consistently used in written Latin; the writer (or carver) could choose whether or not to use them, and I think they're

4655:

Normally I can tell who's being buried by whom based on which name is in the dative and which is in the nominative. Here all of the names appear to be genitive—possible that Mindia Paetilla is in the dative, but it seems clear that she's not the one being buried, since the subject is a

338:"Venerunt etiam legati Graecorum a Theophilo imperatore directi, Theodosius videlicet, Calcedonensis metropolitanus episcopus, et Theophanius spatharius, ferentes cum donis imperatore dignis epistolam quos imperator quinto decimo Kalendas Iunii in Ingulenheim honorifice suscepit" 192:"Venerunt etiam legati Graecorum a Theophilo imperatore directi, Theodosius videlicet, Calcedonensis metropolitanus episcopus, et Theophanius spatharius, ferentes cum donis imperatore dignis epistolam quos imperator quinto decimo Kalendas Iunii in Ingulenheim honorifice suscepit" 2215:

I personally like the small caps style, because it's a good way of representing actual usage during the Classical period of Latin (which the article is meant to describe), but I am not sure it is appropriate for Knowledge, since I've never seen a book that uses it: it's kind of

2654:

they use Latin words inside of the English text a lot and they use italics, not small caps. Better to accept such books as a model. The things we should really discuss, and they are really important, is the consistent usage of v and j, and when and why to use the macrons and

2642:). While the minuscule is more or less how Latin texts have been looked for at least the last 15 centuries, especially the last 500 years or so (since the wide introduction of the Italian humanist minuscule, now known as lower case). So I am for the well-accepted typographic 3302:, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Latin, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at 1851:. Feel free to look over it, make corrections, and ping me if you need any of the texts I cited if you want to verify/check what I wrote. I'd particularly like it if someone can double-check my Latin translations (there's only a few, and they're short). Thanks!-- 133:

Fortunately, I didn't delete any stubs, as mentioned in my second post above. The foolishness of my mission was pointed out to me and I changed gears and began to redirect ONLY those articles that contained nothing more than definitions of legal Latin phrases to

4997:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

3389:

usually refers to Caesar's commentaries on the Civil War. While the disambiguating "(Lucan)" would help, the present title is probably more helpful for identifying the work than a lesser-known title that just happens to be a better description of the work.

2637:

the Latin majuscule was used predominantly as the special letter forms for stone inscriptions. It would be strange to use the letters for stone inscriptions in a general encyclopedic text unless we want to "reproduce" those stone inscriptions (like it's done

1932:

It needs to be proofread and formatted. Proofreading at Wikisource isn't very difficult, especially if you're working on the yellow "proofread" pages, which just need a double-check. It's possible that someone who reads Latin would find that easy to do.

2240:

If you want to provide a pronunciation, that's fine; but generally macrons and such shouldn't be in the main text of an article, unless pronunciation itself is being discussed in the article (rather than an example given for words that might otherwise be

88:. Any help or criticism would be much appreciated. I am of the opinion that if we clean up some of these articles and move the information to the correct place, we can focus on improving the Latin-related articles that are actually important. Thank you 1903: 1777:

is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

802:? (Since it's supposed to represent the reporting of someone else's saying the words "I love freedom".) Also if any Latin-competent editors could have an overall look at that section, and possibly annotate it a bit, that would obviously be great :) -- 360: 5001:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

2533:, where it elegantly distinguishes the Latin spelling from any of the other texts, such as English translation and phonetic rendering. Since these are also derived from Latin, it adds clarity to reserve a dedicated font for Latin proper. 1875:

the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please

584:

But are we talking about adjectives or nouns? It seems to me that we're working with nouns here. Anyway, we can rule out the accusative because it makes no sense. It has to be ablative, and apparently both spellings are valid, although

5219: 2274:

I like the idea of a combined template. Say, a SC option in the lang tag. I find it easier to read combined text w SC's, as the Latin is nicely set off from the English, and it's clear that it's Classical rather than modern Latin. —

2444:

I don't know much about Classical Latin letterforms, so can't comment on which would have been originally used by Cicero and other Classical Latin writers. However, regrettably Roman cursive couldn't be used for the examples in the

4641: 2569: 733:

I am raising this level on this project and if anyone objects, please feel free to state exactly why so that the appropriate work can be done. We do not berate or belittle others for any reason. Get to work on the article and your

949:. So literally "Source of notable information of the universe," though in English we would say "about the universe." I suspect, however, that a better way to represent in English what the title was intended to mean would be 3266: 1458:. The word isn't in my Bantam New Latin & English Dictionary (1995), nor in the original edition (1966), nor in my revised Cassell's (1997). So it seems to be either rare or modern. However, the past participle of 239:, actually have an Old Norse etymology). Eventually, the Rus' Khaganate, even though the Norse ruling elite was but small and soon assimilated to the Balto-Slavic population, became the nucleus and namegiver for modern 3136: 1290: 119:

It is the policy of wikipedia to expand stubs when possible, not delete them. Each of the articles you deleted could have its own article. You have succeeded in making more work for those who would write them.

1345: 1956:

there is discussion as to whether the feminine gender of many tree names in -us is a feature of Classical Latin, or an innovation of Botanical (or Medieval) Latin. Can any Latinist shed light on this matter?

4670: 4656:

great-grandson aged four years and four days. But is the great-grandson Lucius Titiedius Flaccus Petronianus, at the beginning of the inscription, or the Lucius Titiedius L. f. Flaccus at the end (they

3555: 1435:(which gets two google hits that are duplicates). It seems odd that Google searches don't confirm this guesswork, even for the singular form. Can anyone set us straight about the correct forms? Thanks. 5243: 4518:" is/should be translated? I have seen it rendered as "Dear Jesus", "O Sweet Jesus", Blessed Jesus", and "Merciful Jesus" -the latter most often. The above-linked article renders it "Pious Jesus" Thx. 4781:

and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

3551: 1902: 3434:

It was a perfectly valid question. I've been in a number of debates where the most common title was hard to determine, or not as a good for Knowledge. Someone else might still want to weigh in.

4608:

etc. Not sure. Heeelp ! Discussion on the respective page is newest from 2011, that's why I pose my question here as well. Article is rated C importance, but I do find it helpful nevertheless. --

2932:

The sources I'm finding say those vowels are /a e i ɔ u/ or /a ɛ i ɔ u/. The English sources always use "aw" to represent o. The source above also uses /a ɛ i ɔ u/, so I will change it to that. —

617:

Hello. Would you mind to help me with the correct English translation of the following Latin inscription "Pessime mus, saepius me provocas ad iram. Ut te deus perdat"? It is a part of the article

4366: 2189:(which can all be done using inline CSS included in a template), but that's only necessary if editors actually want Latin text to remain in small caps. (Latin text should also all be marked with 3099: 378: 3182: 1316: 3775:

banner today, and noticed that the project logo is an artifact-ridded JPEG. So I popped it into Inkscape, traced it, and uploaded the result to Commons. What do y'all think of this version?

1918: 2148:

styles Latin text with small caps. This is, as far as I know, a convention not used except here on Knowledge, and some editors have objected to it on the talk page. Currently the page uses

401: 4544:, but it would be appropriate, particularly if the speaker intends to be respectfully formal. So "(O) blessed Jesus" or "(O) holy Jesus" are probably the closest possible translations. 3158: 3084:

Your Latin's much better than mine, I think, but your translation looks pretty good to me. I'd go with that, and if someone wants to suggest an improvement they're always free to do so.

3518:

That's usually a good approach in cases like this, although I would probably place the Latin title first in this instance, and make the English parenthetical. Either way works, though.

2499:

shows square capitals, rustic capitals, and uncial, but not Roman cursive, but I don't know of an article that systematically presents the letterforms used for Classical to Late Latin. —

730:

The question was HOW to go about it. Not could you please bash an editor around a little? If you don't want to collaborate with others to improve the encyclopedia why are you even here?

5081:

parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.

1399:, meaning a name that is a combination (such as a binomial for a species) that has been rejected by the International Botanical Congress? The phrase is not often used, but as discussed 5034: 3984: 3858:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 3259:

is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,

80:

but I've begun to nominate some of them for deletion. As of now, I've only nominated a few, and those are the Knowledge articles that merely define a term that is already defined in

3142:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

1642: 4836: 4019: 2603:

Sorry if I wasn't clear. As introduced by my first paragraph, I was looking for a dedicated font. In that sense, it's available, just as a married guy might be "available". ;-) —

1408: 5029:

Quality assessments by Knowledge editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at

4455: 5175: 5067:

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass

2098: 2063: 1909:

Dear Latin experts: Is this old AfC submission something that should be kept and improved? It will be deleted soon as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. —

1302: 1291: 4377: 2430:. To sum up. In my opinion writing in minuscules is no less authentic and historical than in capitals. As it was already said above, the context is the key what way to use.-- 4342: 2771: 2660: 2435: 1769:

is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available

1360: 4417: 3961: 2780:

The book you link seems to indicate that mid vowels are not distinguished in closeness, and since I made my first post, I realized two facts that make it highly unlikely.

2629:

My point is if we want authentic representation of Latin texts both the contemporary majuscule and minuscule (or upper and lower cases) are unauthentic but lower case is

1632: 4078: 4501: 4483: 1997:! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! 1736: 1658: 2977: 2664: 2572:, and its tight spacing makes it particularly hard to distinguish differences in individual letters - one of the main concerns of Latin spelling and pronunciation. — 3036: 1781:

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the

397: 4120: 3978: 3652: 2478:.) So it might be best to restructure the article and restrict the "square capitals" to a table of examples, with the modern Latin orthography side-by-side with it. 702: 4043: 3692: 3164: 1344: 3879: 3093: 1638: 1444: 3222: 2914:. There may be allophonic open-mid vowels before sonorants in Ecclesiastical Latin pronounced by Italians, because this allophony exists in Italian according to 2767: 2656: 2550: 2431: 1487: 1062: 924: 720: 5232: 2898: 2775: 2507: 2439: 1580: 1385: 1199: 4617: 4219: 4570: 4553: 2620: 2607: 2598: 541: 113: 4635: 3527: 3497: 3443: 3421: 3399: 2942: 2926: 2748: 2058: 1381:

in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. -

5019: 4337: 4296: 3731:. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like 2284: 1966: 3748: 3001: 2523: 2256: 1897: 1616: 1558: 1492:

Yes, it's all very New Latin, not the sort of thing you'll find in ordinary Latin dictionaries, which are geared to Classical Latin. Anything spelled with

1025: 988: 970: 436: 372: 145: 128: 84:(where, in my opinion, they really belong). Many of them are legal terms or phrases; for these, I suggest merging the information in the article into this 4160: 2323:, and converts text to uppercase and makes it 73% height, which seems to be x-height in some fonts at least. This has to be used as a replacement for the 1218:

to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article.

671: 653: 4102: 4012: 3942:

I noticed Ecclesiastical Latin's macrons are being used often, and I was wondering what the standards are for the varieties of Latin, and which to use.

3602: 1835: 1591:: "'People called Romanes, they go, the house'?!!" "It says, 'Romans go home'!" "No, it doesn't! It says, 'People called Romanes, they go, the house'!") 1276:. The text is very unclear, and seems to require a lot of tidying up and illustration with examples. Would be great if someone knowledgeable could help. 3843: 2910:

the open-mid and close-mid distinction from the IPA help page, because so far all evidence indicates that Ecclesiastical Latin has a five-vowel system:

2372: 1535: 1106: 839: 825: 811: 789: 598: 579: 466: 3657: 3632: 3626: 3562: 3367: 2936: 2267: 1602: 1339: 5090: 4956: 3381:

is far more common as the title in published works, and always has been (the search was not case-sensitive, and will have included other works titled

3078: 2135: 1942: 621:

and I'm not sure if my translation ("Evil mouse, for how long will you bother me. May God destroy you.") is accurate. Thanks for any help. Regards. --

3937: 3849: 1277: 831: 803: 762: 743: 693: 137: 105: 89: 2586:. Emphasis is rare on Knowledge, because it has an unencyclopedic tone, and book titles are typically not in the same text as example words. Hence, 2091: 1227: 349: 4994: 4675: 4469: 4447: 3187: 2582:

Italics are available. It's normal to present foreign words in italics on Knowledge, and italics are used in most language articles: for instance,

1929: 1740: 1713: 1697: 1683: 5130: 3867: 1808: 250:

is still kinda controversial, as modern Russian scholars often regard it as a modern romantic nationalist myth originating with late-19th century

4401: 904: 454: 3460:

I think it might be best to treat it like a person better known by another name (e.g. Prince). In other words, the article is still located at "

1244: 899: 4961: 4527: 4184: 3932: 3909: 3802: 1154: 4370: 4256: 4108: 1374: 1145:

I wish to add the English translation (the most appropriate one) for the Bela IV of Hungary article - this is the tomb inscription. Thanks.

524:

The bottom line is, the motto is ablative and means something like "moving in the moving thing," but either spelling is theoretically valid.

4578: 2697: 2692: 1869: 1823: 1285: 874: 334: 188: 2018: 634: 5193: 5163:

to show the evolution of the Latin alphabet from Classical Latin through its integration into modern languages and its codification in the

4695: 4320: 2023: 1390: 1256: 5054:

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to

1044: 1010: 333:

But what I need for good sourcing is an exact translation of portions relevant to the informations bulleted above. Original Latin text at

4261: 2634: 97: 2576: 2361: 1887:(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) 5064:, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories. 5024: 3862:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

3716: 1365: 1211: 59: 4984: 4125: 1327: 770: 298:

but had settled in what is northwestern Russia today (I find this information several times in modern sources, attributing it to the

4071: 2170:, is not affected by the CSS property, so it displays at full size, about twice as tall as the surrounding small caps. In addition, 4841: 3567: 3178: 2128: 1947: 1864: 1321: 2409: 2228: 1773:(editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. 258:

seem to be a rather authoritative, and, given their time of origination, pretty concise, source to refute these Russian scholars.

3957: 1001:

Could you add the expression: "Cave linguam! = Mind your words!" to your list, please? I think it is a very important expression.

5051:, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment. 2204:, or should it be represented in what seems to be the usual way in English books on Latin (lowercase, proper names capitalized, 5095: 4932: 3029: 2890:

had different developments in the Romance languages. However, this distinction is apparently erased in Ecclesiastical Latin. —

1813: 1091: 667: 630: 3735:), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the 1297:

This is more of a debate on wikicode organization, rather than content or visible layout. The template in question is used in

5214: 3685: 3316: 1035:

This is a German website. "Cave linguam" is used by medical doctors when they talk to each other in the presence of patients.

2733:. I haven't seen verification of this claim. All pronunciation guides for Ecclesiastical Latin indicate a five-vowel system 1585:

Google needs to go back to school. What it wrote is "Because the Latin language is dead—not!" (I'm reminded of the scene in

1508:

means more "name to be rejected" rather than "rejected name". Combinatio is feminine and a quick Google search reveals that

4832: 3170: 1732: 5205:

This article has been completely rewritten in a way that flatly contradicts earlier versions. More eyes would be welcome.

4497: 4465: 4443: 4413: 3256: 1986:

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that

1407:(Thunberg) Nakai, comb. rej.". We've been guessing what the full spelling is. There are related phrases documented in the 3174: 3126: 1400: 1036: 1002: 393: 2122: 4249: 3541: 3066: 2639: 2004: 341: 4476: 2185:

There is a solution: to convert Latin text in the article to capitals, change font size, and specify fonts containing

483:

because that's the way most other third-declension nouns work. In any case, it has to be an ablative phrase, "moving

5154: 5058: 5045: 4212: 3215: 2684: 2193:, and this would be best included in the same template to minimize the amount of code in both Wiki markup and HTML.) 1923: 1745: 3859: 4004: 3985: 3884: 2907: 2762:

has the same distinction". Ecclesiastical Latin of all others may or may not retain the distinction, it depends on

2530: 2446: 2316: 2197: 2145: 326:

while conquering from the Baltic coast southward. It's why their realm in centuries to come was to be known as the

47: 17: 3303: 879: 261:

What I get of this Latin text is only the gist of it. Apparently, a delegation of Rus people were interrogated by

4936: 4828: 4008: 3754: 3060: 2496: 1782: 1232: 1205: 1079: 1075:

I just tagged an article as part of the WikiProject. (I didn't even know the WikiProject existed, incidentally.)

679: 284:

in this Latin text, maybe via Byzantine Greek translation? As far as I can tell, a letter from Byzantine Emperor

155: 5122:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4493: 4461: 4439: 4409: 4369:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4288:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4211:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4152:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4070:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 4011:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3684:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3594:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3214:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 3028:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2970: 2969:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2315:, but I thought an abbreviated title would be best, if this template is to be used for almost all Latin text in 2090:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 2050:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion 5239: 5160: 4809: 4402: 1971: 1568: 570:. Maybe it's sometimes found as the ablative too, but at the very least it's definitely nominative/accusative. 4289: 3148:

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

4793: 4243: 3953: 3914: 3826: 3785: 3269:

with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Latin.

1877: 1770: 1272:

on this page: could someone please take a look at the section on Latin (or indeed the article as a whole) in

5123: 2470:

in it, using the modern Latin orthography, they won't be able to find it. (For instance, if they search for

2051: 5030: 4509: 4153: 3728: 2083: 2064: 1723: 2911: 2734: 2714: 2710: 2196:

So I'd like input (maybe a vote, though I don't know how to set up a poll). Do editors want Latin text in

1516:

are both more common than the versions with neuter adjectives, which must be regarded as mistakes. As for

658:

Thank you for your time and expert help, Wareh. I'll replace the current wording with your translation. --

5164: 4924: 4864: 4842: 4362: 4343: 3900:. I would like to have some input from members familiar with Latin and ancient Greek. Thanks in advance. 3893: 2487:

Also, it would be good to have a section on Classical and post-Classical Latin letterforms, much like in

1881:

and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my

1766: 1670:

et dabo eis cor unum et viam unam ut timeant me universis diebus et bene sit eis et filiis eorum post eos

1312: 1082:

into a PNG? When reduced, it has horrible JPEG compression elements that make it look rather unsightly. —

441:

But this is also one of the points on which Latin spelling is inconsistent. The more common ending of an

231:) conquered portions of the Baltics and today's northwestern Russia, a realm which was soon known as the 104:

help with the format, Just copy and paste the table that I already made and continue the list. THank you

2557:

describes, that reading will be slowed down by about 10%, which would come to bear in longer passages.

4928: 3811: 3770: 2514:

I object. This is neither standard usage nor at all helpful to the general reader. Please use italics.

2466:

However, a problem with the "square capitals" has occurred to me: if a reader searches for a word with

1261: 911: 851: 663: 626: 38: 2874:

is made in Ecclesiastical Latin. A distinction was made in Vulgar Latin, shown by the fact that close

1665: 5235: 5111: 4988: 4358: 4277: 4200: 4141: 4059: 4000: 3736: 3673: 3595: 3583: 3203: 3017: 2958: 2670: 2079: 2039: 1112: 640:"Most wicked mouse, you incite me to anger once too often." That would be a bit closer to the Latin ( 2492: 2179: 254:. What the Russians are saying is that the original Rus were actually Slavs. Now, these 9th century 5189: 5146: 4789: 4686:

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

4681: 4422: 4393: 4312: 4235: 4176: 4094: 4035: 3708: 3618: 3238: 3145:

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

3074: 3052: 2993: 2127:

If I may use this talk page as a reference desk, I'm just wondering why some of Ballio's slaves in

2114: 2003:

To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to

1751: 612: 1097:

A pretty SVG logo has long been a desideratum here. Do you know how to go about getting one made?

207:

annals that was completed in 882 AD. The issue behind this is the historical first mention of the

5173:

This article is also being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts at this article's

2488: 1994: 1988: 1976: 1612: 1554: 1440: 1240: 1233: 1150: 1040: 1006: 739: 3920: 1301:, so I'm notifying the two projects listed on that page's talk page. Your comments are welcome: 5221: 4480: 4067: 4063: 4044: 3949: 1938: 1223: 345: 262: 74: 2841:

in Classical Latin. Since the two digraphs are confused, they can't be pronounced differently.

5071: 4911: 4885: 4750: 4208: 2966: 2755: 2688: 2302: 2280: 1962: 1953: 1914: 1765:. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The 1298: 659: 622: 618: 419:, and it means "moving around within the moving thing". If you say "mobilis in mobile", then 915:? It was pointed out on the Talk page of that article that the given one is wrong. Thanks! 528:

is technically correct, but most Latin speakers (at least today) would probably assume that

5198: 5014: 4951: 4770: 4666: 4631: 4566: 4549: 4523: 3974: 3945: 3723: 3681: 3591: 3523: 3439: 3395: 3328:

I was wondering if I could get a consensus on this. The Knowledge page for Lucan's poem is

3089: 3065:

Does someone here read Latin well enough to improve the transliteration and translation at

2915: 2519: 2309: 2252: 1831: 1483: 1356: 1281: 1087: 1058: 996: 895: 870: 835: 807: 766: 716: 594: 537: 462: 285: 141: 109: 93: 85: 3124:

message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the

8: 4940: 4778: 4613: 3928: 3835: 3794: 3646: 3636: 3491: 3415: 3361: 3286:

The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

3070: 2962: 2943: 2175: 2152: 1858: 1576: 1193: 984: 920: 2263:

When in doubt don't regulate. Let it be up to context and individual editor preferences.

1427:, which makes it third declension, I think. So the singular nominative would seem to be 5233:

Talk:Romance languages#Representation of Classical Latin–Vulgar Latin split in infobox?

5086: 4805: 4116: 3875: 3104: 3021: 3002: 2702: 2604: 2573: 2344: 2140: 2132: 1798: 1790: 1762: 1729: 1608: 1550: 1436: 1382: 1273: 1262: 1146: 966: 961:

might also mean "curiosities," but doesn't seem to here given the outline of the work.

856: 748: 735: 699: 690: 269: 199: 181: 3310: 3252: 2823:

are confused, indicating they are pronounced the same. Confusion occurs in the phrase

2174:

is not present in all fonts, and it seems not to be in the Unicode fonts specified in

1474:, which popped up while checking for this phrase, although Google didn't come up with 5199: 4907: 4740: 4691: 4489: 4333: 4285: 3559: 3152: 2923: 2895: 2745: 2617: 2595: 2504: 2406: 2369: 2225: 1934: 1840: 1219: 885: 860: 124: 4894: 4642:

Help understanding inscription: how many people are there, and how are they related?

4252:. I studied Latin for five years but that part of my brain has rotted away. Thanks. 1395:

Hello, could someone help with us the botanical latin phrase that is abbreviated as

761:. Does this mean "He says that he loves freedom", or "He says that I love freedom"? 5186: 4979: 4963: 4860: 4846: 4817: 3905: 3677: 3658: 2933: 2583: 2276: 2264: 1993:

easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested,

1958: 1910: 1335: 3919:

I've started a discussion about Knowledge guidelines for quantitative scansion at

3246: 302:, but *WHAT THE HECK* was their contemporary name for "northwestern Russia"?), and 5210: 5008: 4945: 4774: 4662: 4627: 4562: 4545: 4519: 3970: 3855: 3519: 3435: 3391: 3339: 3085: 2651: 2587: 2515: 2248: 2087: 2014: 1893: 1882: 1827: 1693: 1654: 1479: 1352: 1309: 1083: 1054: 891: 866: 776:

It means "He says that I love freedom". "He says that he loves freedom" would be

754: 712: 649: 590: 533: 458: 368: 327: 265: 232: 173: 4893:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

2850:

Because of these two facts, it would seem that no distinction between close-mid

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4873: 4813: 4609: 3924: 3818: 3777: 3641: 3486: 3471: 3410: 3356: 3211: 3207: 3188: 2647: 2554: 1853: 1708: 1678: 1597: 1572: 1530: 1367: 1188: 1102: 1021: 980: 979:

Thanks, that clarifies it. I have changed the translation accordingly. Cheers,

916: 821: 785: 575: 432: 383:

Hello, I don't know if that's the right place to ask, but I hope so. I read on

323: 1774: 5167: 5140: 5127: 5082: 4801: 4687: 4559: 4387: 4374: 4306: 4293: 4253: 4229: 4216: 4170: 4157: 4149: 4112: 4088: 4075: 4029: 4016: 3871: 3744: 3702: 3689: 3612: 3599: 3558:). This WikiProject's input would be welcome to try to reach a consensus. -- 3547: 3350:

in antiquity/the Middle Ages. Would it be unreasonable to move this page to "

3232: 3219: 3132:

that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

3046: 3033: 2987: 2974: 2543: 2178:: Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode (at least, those fonts aren't listed 2108: 2095: 2055: 1819: 1795: 1786: 1587: 1252: 962: 251: 136:]. Nothing is being deleted and extra work is not being created for anyone. 4760: 4646:

Found this inscription while working on an article about the Titedia gens:

4427: 4329: 4204: 4185: 2919: 2891: 2825: 2763: 2741: 2613: 2591: 2500: 2402: 2395: 2382: 2365: 2354: 2295: 2221: 2217: 1540:

Thank you both for those scholarly replies! It was my mistake to translate

1070: 689:

reassessed to possible B-Class and getting an assessment of "importance"?--

550:

as an accusative. The two- and three-form third-declension adjectives like

356: 216: 208: 169: 161: 120: 4917:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

2612:

Oh, I see. Well, regrettably fonts are not monogamous on Knowledge. :-) —

2401:

to see if they're there, and add them to the inline CSS if they're not. —

2007:. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X. 5180: 4877: 4694:. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 4431: 4325: 3901: 3759: 3069:, from the base of the image on the corresponding article page? Thanks. — 2364:(the Aeneid example). Let me know if there are problems or objections. — 1331: 1303:

Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6#Template:Latin_outtro

1292:

Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6#Template:Latin_outtro

1215: 289: 4588:

Correct plural form ? The article states as plural form of the phrase: *

3272:

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

1758: 859:

describes a limited opportunity for Knowledge editors to have access to

471:

My Latin is rusty, so I'll assume that Septentrionalis is correct about

5206: 4788:, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at 3342:

and Susanna Braund make argument after argument about how the poem was

2758:. I believe your question already has an answer: "Ecclesiastical Latin 2680: 2043: 2024: 2010: 1889: 1750:

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to

1689: 1650: 1306: 645: 424: 364: 212: 177: 165: 3546:

Two categories about Byzantine Latin are currently being discussed at

2590:'s request to replace small caps with italics is entirely possible. — 2319:. Currently the inline CSS of the template specifies fonts containing 1351:

There is a debate over a deletion proposal. All comments are welcome.

215:

from Sweden that, starting in the 9th century from Novgorod and Kiev (

5119: 5115: 5096: 4724: 4703: 4281: 4262: 3330: 2131:

have names that seem to be neuter, such as Hedylium and Phœnicium. —

2047: 1848: 1841: 1703: 1673: 1592: 1525: 1501: 1378: 1098: 1017: 817: 816:

I made some corrections in person in the examples and added glosses.

781: 571: 428: 228: 5231:

If anyone here is interested in this discussion, it can be found at

1032: 933:

here is not a literal fountain; it's "source," nominative singular.

491:

the moving thing" makes no sense in this context, since the idea is

4515: 2391:

Does anyone know of any more fonts that have i longa (ꟾ)? Check in

1248: 416: 355:

Your passage is translated (and discussed) by what appears to be a

236: 2536: 1904:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Latin homographs and homonyms

1466:, so I would say that, following the examples above, it should be 81: 4438:

Someone want to translate the Latin for me, "outer" and "inner"?

4145: 4126: 3464:", but the first line notes that this is just the popular name: " 3261: 3025: 1245:

Talk:Mercat Cross, Edinburgh#Translation of the Latin inscription

5226:

Representation of Classical Latin–Vulgar Latin split in infobox?

3283:

for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.

2360:

throughout the article. You can see an example of its output in

2305:, the letterforms used in Roman inscriptions. It was originally 794:

Thanks! So am I right in thinking that in the example as given,

3587: 3568: 3100:

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

1928:

There's a scanned copy of a Latin grammar book at Wikisource:

318: 204: 5103: 4350: 4269: 4192: 4133: 4051: 3992: 3665: 3575: 3195: 3009: 2950: 2071: 2031: 1728:

Please submit your comments regarding on-going discussions at

937:

are "things worth remembering", given in the genitive plural.

2676: 1016:

Does it actually exist in Latin, or did you just make it up?

686: 507:. But I also don't recall any accusatives that would end in 384: 220: 5033:, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent 4626:

certainly does need to be plural if it's included. Fixed.

4109:

Knowledge talk:Picture of the day § Template:POTD/2020-07-10

4536:

in this case (two syllables) appears to be the vocative of

3732: 1326:

Members of this project may be interested in discussion at

909:

Hi, what would be the proper translation of the book title

4881: 2789:

The first: The IPA help page asserts that the long vowels

2717:. The close-mid pronunciation is supposedly used for long 2378:

I haven't heard any objections, so I went ahead and added

1524:, which however unfortunately gets no Google hits at all. 953:

but if you give that you'll have pedants "correcting" you.

340:

on that page, and continuing AFAIK for two more pages). --

4825:

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from.

4736:

It will work on a variety of links, including those from

2918:, but there is no evidence for a phonemic distinction. — 1186:

It's about two years too late, but I hope it will help.--

322:, a title they had likely borrowed from contact with the 5137: