Talk:Latin/Archive 2

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
====Latin → Latin language====
* Most languages are under "X language", except when the language name is not also an ethnonym.  "Latin" (as the existance of Latin (disambiguation) illustrates) is not unambiguous, and can refer as a noun to a member of the ancient Latin people, to a Roman Catholic or Protestant (in Orthodox Christian usage), to a member of the "Latin race" (i.e., Iberian/French/Italian, in 19th century parlance), etc.  The talk page is getting nowhere, so I think this needs input from the broader community. —Tkinias 22:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the best thing in the long run (is it?) then maybe we should bite the bullet. (And it needn't be done overnight.) Rd232 01:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not, but I thought it was still live.  There wasn't a tag here that said it had survived a vote.  The vote was very close, so I assumed that it had been left open past the normal 5 day window.  Adding notmoved tag below. --Jpbrenna 23:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RM]] discussion

message: * Most languages are under "X language", except when the language name is not also an ethnonym.  "Latin" (as the existance of Latin (disambiguation) illustrates) is not unambiguous, and can refer as a noun to a member of the ancient Latin people, to a Roman Catholic or Protestant (in Orthodox Christian usage), to a member of the "Latin race" (i.e., Iberian/French/Italian, in 19th century parlance), etc.  The talk page is getting nowhere, so I think this needs input from the broader community. —Tkinias 22:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the best thing in the long run (is it?) then maybe we should bite the bullet. (And it needn't be done overnight.) Rd232 01:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not, but I thought it was still live.  There wasn't a tag here that said it had survived a vote.  The vote was very close, so I assumed that it had been left open past the normal 5 day window.  Adding notmoved tag below. --Jpbrenna 23:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Latin]] &rarr; [[Latin language]]

message: Some schools, (versions depending on the country, age of the language etc. )
dispute that 'v' is should not be in Latin but should be replaced with 'u'.
Some in some books/schools, the pronounciation of 'v' is w. I read that
v was a latter addition. 
Also it is said that Church Latin is based on Itallian.  e.g. 
ng -> ny, c-> ch.  etc.. Is there a final, authorative reference  Comments, anyone ? Jondel
* Yes, just read a book on the history of the Romance languages and you'll get details on what Latin was like as a real language.  As for "v", there is no such letter in Latin — it was invented in the Middle Ages.  Julius Caesar said and wrote "ueni, uidi, uici." —Chameleon 22:21, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: v

message: See: Talk:Greek numerical prefixes Leonard G. 04:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Scholar Needed! 

message: does anyone know if it is true that most ancient Romans actually spoke Greek more often than Latin? mnemonic 08:45, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
:I suspect that the answer depends upon your definition of "ancient Roman" and the timing. Probably more subjects of the Roman empire spoke Greek than Latin because the eastern parts of the empire were the most populous and had long been Hellenized. A large percentage of the upper class Romans, especially those with intellectual pretensions, would also speak Greek.
:However, the majority of the Roman citizens-in-the-street probably only spoke Latin. GreatWhiteNortherner 09:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The élite preferred Greek.  Greek was also spoken by the numerous foreign slaves, by merchants, and by others who might need it.  Plus of course, Greeks, when they were in the Empire.  Otherwise, the language used was Latin, in either vulgar or classical form.   — Chameleon My page/My talk 09:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good clarification, thanks.  — Chameleon 19:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek to the ancient Romans? 

message: * can anyone translate this - In umbra, igitur, pugnabimus? --Larsie 18:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''translation''' 

message: Over at Hairshirt#History is something I wrote.  I took the Latin from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but the translation doesn't make sense. Can someone knowledgeable of Latin help here?  Here, I'll repeat the paragraph:
:The Latin word is cilicium, and the reputed first Scriptural use of the word hairshirt in the Latin scriptures is in the Vulgate of Psalm 34:13, "Ego autem, cum mihi molesti essent, induebar cilicio." ("Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile" in the King James Bible — this is from The Catholic Encyclopedia referenced below). This is translated as hair-cloth in the Douay Bible, and as sackcloth in the Anglican Authorized Version and the Book of Common Prayer.
dino 02:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vulgate followed the Septuagint rather than the Tanakh and misnumbers a bunch of Psalms, and as a result many of the numbers differ from the KJV through large passages of the book by one.  What you want is Psalm 35:13: "But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth."  Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin scholar needed for another article 

message: "The closest living common language to Latin is Italian."
Is this correct? I also read that the closest language is Romanian, but i doubt this.
:Well Romanian is the only romance language to still have a case system. That's a pretty major similarity - of course the case system is different but not as different as Italian which has no cases at all.
:I'm not sure but I think I've also heard either Latvian or Lithuanian mentioned as being very similar to Latin - but then again they're not even romance languages... — Hippietrail 11:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on what your measure of "close" is, really.  Romanian still has cases, but it has accreted Slavic grammatical features.  Italian also is close, retaining vowels lost in much of Western Romance, and not voicing intervocalic stops.  Sardinian I understand is particularly conservative [though its article is seriously in need of cleanup...].   —Muke Tever 12:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly I goofed regarding the Baltics - they're supposed to be the closest to Proto Indo European! From what I've read Romanian linguists will not agree with what you say about Slavic features though that is the common belief in the west. Romanian does have non-romance, non-slavic features such as suffixed articles though, and it does have some slavic vocabulary. That all aside, I think you're quite right about Sardinian - I would like to know more about that language. — Hippietrail 14:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  er, it is common said that  italian is the most similiar language to latin because of it's grammar and vucabulary, 80 % of italian words are "directly" derivated from latin, and the grammar is the same of italian. An example, the consecutio temporum is found in none of the romance language except that in italian. --Philx 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Spanish and Gallego both have "cabeza" for head, and Portuguese has "cabeça".  Italian uses capo but also has "testa", and French has tête.  No need to be sorry, the claim is just plain silly.  Tomertalk 07:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what that last comment about the 20 yr. teachers means, but I can also attest to Catalan's use of "cap" meaning "head."
Joshua Crowgey 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest language... 

message: I've been trying to add new links to the page, but next time I check (after a few seconds) they are all gone and the page looks again as it was before. I always click on 'save page' though after the changes. Can anyone help?
:You did add one link, but you also reshuffled the existing links in a fashion that made no sense, and deleted the infobox. When I saw that last edit, which appeared to be simple vandalism, I hit the sysop rollback button, which undid all of your edits. You then added the erroneous :category:Endangered languages, and I reverted that too, which overwrote your readdition of the link. I then restored it, and it is now in place. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry I reverted your work so hastily; the deletion of the infobox looked like classic vandalism or newbie testing, but I see now that it was just a mistake. As to the extinct/endangered distinction: the definition you are using comes from the Wikipedia article endangered language, which says in its introduction "A dead language (or extinct language) is one which has no native speakers."—that seems to apply to Latin. Despite its use in the Vatican, and despite a few who have learned to speak it, there are no native speakers and have not been for some time. I suppose it's something of a special case, for which I would use the term undead language if I hadn't just made it up on the spot. :) —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to add new links 

message: CONTINUING THE RATHER LENGTHY DISCUSSION FROM ABOVE
Latin is unequivocally dead.  This is very different from being extinct.  Pictish, Old Prussian, Hurrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Tocharian B are extinct.  Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Aramaic, Classical Greek, Demotic, Sanskrit and Latin are dead.  Hulaulá, Breton, Gaelic, Cherokee and Ainu are endangered.  Burushaski, Finnish, Marathi, Cebuano and Papiamento are living.  That Sanskrit, Biblical Hebrew, Coptic, Latin and Classical Arabic are literary languages does not alter the fact that they are all dead.  Even if apostasy and apathy result in their no longer being learned by anyone ever again, the only thing that will ever change their status to extinct is some cataclysm that removes all hope of their ever being learned again.  The only thing that will ever change their status to endangered is if some community adopts any one of them as a normal mode of communication, not as a lingua franca, but as their communal language, teaching it as a first language to their children, and if those children or their descendants fall below a threshhold of number-of-speakers, esp. a number-of-children-speakers replacement.  This will, of course, remove them from the category of dead to living in the process.  At this point, I have to say that the community consensus is strongly against the single POV-pusher who claims that Latin is endangered.  That should be sufficient to put an end to the issue.  To prevent this issue from cropping up and wasting so much time in the future, however, it might be a good idea to seek authoritative input from non-biased sources to help settle this (in the grand scale of things) petty squabble.  Tomer TALK 01:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
:This single POV-pusher (who has given up on improving wikipedia, so you don't need to worry anymore), would only like to add that if things were as clear as you describe, then you should take heed to remove the wrong language category at the bottom of the article which classifies Latin as an extinct language with the same strenuousness with which my endangered language category was removed over and over by everyone, because you agree above that Latin is indeed NOT extinct. You didn't do that, so your apparent aim at consistency seems to me to be only superficial. At this point I would need to repeat my arguments above about what a living language is according not to me, but to mentioned authorities; but, as said, I won't bother you any further. Like languages, I only have so much resilience. I'm only human, and wouldn't like to die in front of my computer. Cura ut valeas optime! Avitus.
::No, sorry, it has nothing to do your accusation that I have only a superficial interest in consistency.  Instead of making such unfounded assumptions, you should ask.  Then I'll respond:  I'm very interested in consistency, as well as in a correct encyclopedia.  That said, getting involved in revert wars is not the way to do that.  I prefer to hash out problems on the TALK page rather than just angrily revert modifications with which I disagree.  Thanks for asking, and thanks for taking the time to hear my response.  Tomer TALK 01:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::That I also prefer to hash out problems talking I think should be obvious from the lengthy discussion above, and it's others who have waged a revert war against my additions (I only tried to add other perspectives - I've never actually deleted anything myself, however wrong), upon which I gave up all hopes to improve this wikipedia stuff. Cura ut valeas optime. Avitus.
Sanskrit is not DEAD. How can you say that? There are many people who speak the language. It is truly absurd. Come to India, and you will understand. How can you make such an irresponsible comment without fully understanding the complete concept.
:Thank you, my Indian friend. Dhanyavad. Avitus
::I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding the distinction between "dead" and "extinct", but I suspect it has a lot to do with the words that were chosen to describe their status.  A language is dead when no one speaks it as a native language.  That is the case for both Latin and Sanskrit; no one grows up speaking it in their home from infancy.  It is extinct when no one speaks it.  It would perhaps be better for the egos of Latin and Sanskrit speakers if a different word had been used for that state instead of "dead", but so be it; I haven't heard any of them suggest another one.
::Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to keep it listed as "endangered".  A language that is dead can still become extinct at a later time, and there is the possibility of that happening with Latin.  It's just that there are so few that persist as second languages after they have no native speakers that the issue of extinction of an already-dead language rarely comes up.   KarlM 21:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin: Living, Dead, Extinct, Endangered 

message: What type of Latin does Latin used in the British legal system, most resemble; that of Vulgar Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin?
:Legal Latin is not "vulgar Latin," which by definition is a spoken, colloquial language. Tt does share similarities with ecclesiastical Latin, in that like most varieties of medieval Latin it differs from classical Latin, chiefly in vocabulary.  There are dozens of words in legal Latin, like seisina (seisin) and quo warranto, that have no counterpart in classical Latin.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is law kind of like biology in where the international terms are in lantin?Cameron Nedland 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no. Most of the Latin legal terms in use in the US (and UK) come from English law, when official business was conducted in Latin. For example, if the judge wanted to order someone to bring certain evidence to court, he'd issue a document which begins "Sub poena duces tecum..." (Under penalty you are to bring with you...), which is why we call it a subpoena. Other terms for various legal doctrines (res ipsa loquitur, in certain negligence cases, comes to mind) arose because Latin, even as late as a couple hundred years ago, was still, to some degree, used by the highly educated. So it seems different from biology, where the idea is to have a common language and not single out one living language for use. PaulGS 04:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just curious to see how important Latin actually is in the world.  Thanks for the information.Cameron Nedland 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Latin 

message: changed the line about romanian having 5 cases to 3, to better reflect the reality as well as the Romanian entry 
Exit 06:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  romanian cases 

message: For this page, the tabs ought to read "vide" and "nil vide", or whatever it would be, instead of "watch" and "unwatch". :) Wahkeenah 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be "vide" and "ne videas", I think. But I don't find it a good idea to change the Wikipedia software just for one page... on the other hand, there is a whole Latin Wikipedia with that and much more! LjL 22:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: WHERE does scientific Latin, as used in anatomy and taxonomy, etc. derive from, mainly? 62.249.242.232 09:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be derived from classical. See Vulgar Latin. Vulgar latin was more spoken and for the uneducated masses. For example , 'de' started to become more common as case endings were disappearing and use of certain woeds like cavallus(?) instead of equus for horse. A loted of educated Romans spoke Greek. --Jondel 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

text: See List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and Scientific classification.--Jondel 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In structure, Scientific Latin is Classical Latin (or nearly so). In vocabulary, it is very extensible, borrowing widely from many languages. Quintusdecimus 22:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Latin 

message: In the sentence Labor mē vocat, what case is "labor"? Mga 21:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor 

message: Can someone point me to a primary source (a law or regulation) that says that Latin is an official language of the Vatican City state? I am skeptical that one can be found. The publication of some/many documents in Latin would not make it the official language. Most government documents in the United States are written in English, but English is not the official language of the U.S. --Cam 17:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I see nothing there about Latin being the official language of Vatican City. There may be Church canon law and tradition about when Latin is to be used in Church rites and publications, but that does not indicate that the Vatican City, as a state, has Latin as an official language (in the legally-defined way that Wikipedia has been using in its country and language tables). --Cam 13:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you want. Vatican City is a theocracy, so Church law is the law there. Let me look. Dominick (TALK) 13:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help to know that the language infobox can be used without the 'official status' section. As the official status of Latin in the Vatican City isn't straightforward, it might be felt better not to  have it proclaimed in the infobox. To omit that section, simply remove the parameter nation (and agency if that's there). --Gareth Hughes 17:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language of Vatican City 

message: This is the most entertaining talk page I have found since the one for David Icke, reptile-exposer extraordinaire! :-)
I had a query about the infobox: "spoken in" Vatican City seems even odder than "official language of..." - despite the international nature of the Church, isn't most business there is conducted in Italian? In fact, the text says "Official language", so can't it be relabelled as "official language" rather than "spoken in" in the infobox? Or does the lead need to be changed as well? As a compromise, what about using "Official language : Roman Catholic Church"? If it's proving hard to find a citation that it is the Vatican's official language, will that do instead? Although language infoboxes are usually used for countries not organizations, this would appear to be an exceptional case! TheGrappler 02:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican City in the infobox 

message: I've deleted "Latin itself, being a very old language, is far closer to Proto-Indo-European than are most modern Western European languages; it has, in fact, about the same relationship with PIE as modern Italian or French has to Latin." from Grammar on the grounds that it frankly makes no sense -- part of the reason modern Italian and French are so similar to Latin is because they have a long literary heritage in Latin. In written French, inflectional distinctions (like prince-princes or parler-parlez) are preserved not because they are in spoken French, but in Latin. Furthermore, the time gap from Proto-Indo-European and Latin is larger than that from Latin to today. Without citation of a non-controversial source, this claim does not belong in Wikipedia. UnDeadGoat 20:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of non-factual-seeming statement 

message: Without large amounts of studing, and the loss of quite a few brain cells, about the only simple way to have something translated is to 1) ask somebody who knows latin, or 2) Hire a service.  There ARE online translators though, and if someone could find a helpful one, it would definatley be  good addition.  (Intertran was a link here before the external links clipping, but after you got past very simple scentences, it would only occasionally catch words, and they'd frequently be irrelavant to the rest of the words in the scentence. (ex: anything "by means of", almost all endings that modify other words, etc.))
Vaniyz 13:37, 25 May 2006 (EST)
:I was the one who took out a lot of the links, sorry if I got rid of one that should have been kept, but I thought I did a good job of keeping the most valuable ones :P. As for the Intertran translator, yes, I agree, I just looked at it here, and I tried to translate "the dog carries me" (which should become "canis portat me") but I got "the dog having been carried to me" ("canis portatus mihi"), so that's really no good. It must be really hard to program a translator for Latin, because certain translations require assumptions and/or context :\. Aaanyway, I don't think we're going to have much luck finding a good online translator. BTW, off-topic: have you seen the Latin Wikipedia? It's funny because you can tell that it's all very literally translated from English because it closely follows the structure of English sentences and idioms. J. Finkelstein 04:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translators 

message: Yes, I'm aware this isn't a translation service bu indulge me in something silly here. Little green men...viridis viriculae? Peter1968 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Viridis viriculae looks more like "of a green she-manling"; I'm not sure where you got the ae ending from. And vir is the version of "man" that emphasizes masculinity, rather than personhood; I'd go with something more like homunculus viridis to mean "little green man" (plural homunculi virides, "little green men") for a similar connotation. Or, if you want a shorter version (same number of syllables as the English version, in fact), simply viriculus (plural viriculi) could work too, though that might be construed to mean "somewhat green men" rather than "little green men". -Silence 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. One thing though; it's stressed that word order isn't important in Latin due to inflection, so why would it be homunculus viridis and not viridis homunculus? Or is that the same thing? Peter1968 11:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both work, but Latin adjectives generally follow the nouns they agree with (e.g. amicus laetus, "happy friend"), except when they are adjectives of size, beauty, goodness or truth (e.g. bonus amicus, "good friend") or when the speaker is trying to add unusual emphasis to a sentence. Saying that word order "isn't important in Latin" is something of an overgeneralization: Latin word order is certainly more fluid than, say, English word order, but what order you put your words in could still make a big difference to a native Latin speaker, and there were certain conventional word-order patterns that were almost never violated except in poetry. Putting words in a certain order could both change the sentence's emphasis and convey certain expressions: for example, ille Cicero would convey the typical meaning of "that man Cicero", but switching the word order to Cicero ille would change the phrase's connotations and give the implication "that famous man Cicero". This subtle arrangement of word-order implications can be compared to the inflectional differentiation between sentences in English: just as a native Latin speaker would have been able to derive layers of meaning from the precise placement of words in a sentence, so native English speakers can wildly change a sentence's significance based solely on word emphasis (e.g. "I know his name..." implies that the only thing you know about the person in question is his name, whereas "I know his name..." implies that you know one person's name, but not another's). As such, a Latin-speaker would probably use homunculus viridis rather than viridis homunculus, unless he had good reason not to, simply as a matter of convention, not of any hard-and-fast grammatical rules or requirements. So, although ultimately the phrase will make sense either way, noun-then-adjective order is generally preferable. -Silence 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. J. Finkelstein 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Green Men? 

message: I'm aware this isn't what this page is supposed to be for, but others have certainly received useful help on similar matters so here goes! I've been struggling to come up with a satisfactorily accurate, elegant and succinct translation for the motto of St Bede's College, Manchester, which is Nunquam otio torpebat.
I got as far as:
* torpebat = he (probably St. Bede, the school's patron) was wasting time/being inactive
* nunquam = never
* otio = something to do with leisure or free time.
It's putting the while thing together that I can't manage: "he was never wasting (time) at leisure" or just "he never wasted time" or something? 
If you've any ideas please help -- it's a good many years since I briefly studied Latin and have no more knowledge now that can be gleaned from a quick Google!
--Casper Gutman 11:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like 'He was never idle in his spare time', or similar. Some pun on schola/σχολή ('school', 'spare time [esp. devoted to education]') may be being hinted at, or it might just be me :p  —Muke Tever talk 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto translation 

message: Each page to a certain degree overlaps with the other. How can we organize each page so that they each will cover their own separate topics? Should Latin grammar focus on indo European influences on the Latin language? Nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are declined, so the declension page should focus on those. Likewise, verbs are conjugated, so the Conjugation page should focus on verbs. That leaves the Grammar page. What should that focus on, if nouns and verbs are already covered? All of it as of now is terrible unorganized and redundant. Is there any reason why we shouldn't combine all three pages? It seems like that would simplify a great deal of information. Suggestions? - Christopher 16:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Grammar, Declension, and Conjugation still have a lot of redundant information 

message: I read that Latin as a tonal language (just like Sanskrit and Ancient Greek) with a pitch accent. Can someone please tell is this certain. (I read that in "The Roman Pronunciation Of Latin" in the Gutenberg Project)
:Firstly, please sign your name. Secondly, I would not say Latin is truly "tonal" in the sense that Greek is tonal. I would only agree with that assertion if a broader definition of a "tonal language" were used. --Hansh 13:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A tonal language?

message: Does anyone know what (if any) constraints Latin had?Cameron Nedland 16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Cameron Nedland 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonological constraints 

message: I made the minor addition of pointing out, in the noun section, that the lexical entry for a noun is nominative, genitive.  LawrenceTrevallion 18:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nouns 

message: Latin must have had a phonology.  It is a language after all.  Any wikipedia page on a language should include a description of the phonology.  This page lacks one.  I am not qualified to write it.  I am requesting that someone who is, to please do so.  Thanks. 65.102.39.98 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need Phonology

message: When writing in Latin on a subject involving modern terms, how does one know the correct term to use? Does `modern` Latin (ie Latin as used in Ecclestial scripts) loan any of these terms? I'm thinking specifically of those modern words that differ little between European languages, such as television, condom, multiculturalism, communism and so on. Liam Plested 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Vatican dictionary of Neo-Latin, but it is currently out of print; you might want to check the nearest university library for a copy.  This is highly problematic because of the tendency of moderns to mingle Greek and Latin in ways that the ancients generally wouldn't. "Communism," for instance is a Latin adjective combined with what was originally a Greek nominal suffix. "Television" is, of course, a combination of Greek and Latin, as is "automobile."  For television, the Greeks say τηλεώραση (tēleōrasē if it were Ancient Greek, but pronounced tileorasi in Modern); this could also be rendered τηλεώρασις, which would sound more classical.  In pure Latin, it would be something like longovisio, but they would probably just import the Greek term (assuming one existed) and analyze it as a third declension feminine noun, teleorasis, -is.--Jpbrenna 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern words 

message: Can someone add that Latin is a compulsory discipline in Romanian secondary school cicle?
: Someone would need to source this as a fact first. Peter1968 08:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About study discipline

message: I am putting an informal "mini-rfc" (request for comment" here in hopes of attracting some competent Latin scholars.  We need help correctly translating Anno Domini on the article Anno Domini (see Talk:Anno Domini. It all started today when some anon IP (previously known only for vandalism) changed the intro sentence from giving the English translation as "In the Year of the Lord", to instead read "In the Year of Our Lord".  I promptly changed it back, because there is no word in Anno Domini corresponding to "Our".  Unfortunately the anon continued to edit war, and meanwhile a heated discussion erupted on the talk page when some editors pointed out that they have found several sources, even reputable encyclopedias, claiming that the literal English equivalent is "Year of Our Lord".   They don't seem to care that this is actually wrong, and have even changed it to read this, with a citation to one of these incorrect sources. (Of course there are also plenty of sources that provide the correct more literal translation, In the Year of the Lord.) I have run out of reverts for today, and was wondering if anyone who speaks Latin would like to comment over there.  Thanks, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mini rfc" 

message: Maybe a dumb question but ...
There are three related articles of interest here:
* Classical Latin
* Vulgar Latin
* Latin
The first two can be considered somewhat defined but separate languages (although in the case of Vulgar Latin the term refers to a wide span in which the language changed significantly). The last, this article, seems be referring to the first two collectively. The way this article is written, however, treats the topic as a well defined language and attributes a lot of things to "Latin" that apply either to Classical Latin or Vulgar Latin but not both (e.g. the Romance languages derive from Vulgar Latin and most of the Renaissance borrowing in English came from Classical Latin). This seems rather like saying that India was an American colony or the New York is British. The U.S. and the U.K. obviously share a recent history but blurring their legacies makes no sense. Similarly it seems more logical to treat the Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin articles as referring to specific languages and perhaps alter this article as discussing a "family" (albeit a small one).
Am I missing something?
--Mcorazao 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabeling? 

message: I got redirected here from "Latinized".
There should be an article on the subject of the Latinizaton of words into Latin(esque) forms.
Three major concepts:
* transmission of Ancient Greek words into English via their Latinized forms
* the Latinization of (scholarly) names in the Middle Ages -- i.e. Copernicus
* the Latinization of names for modern New Latin scientific classification names —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.241.246 (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need "Latinized" Article 

message: Just wondering, how do you say "think or die" in Latin? Thanks you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.104 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less it's "Cogita aut occumbe" or "Cogita aut moriere" --Gspinoza 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Think or die", damn, that's good. I like that. It's my moto. Cogita aut occumbe! (hey, how would you pronounce that, anyway?) Nick Warren 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ko-gee-tah out okk-oom-bay. --Gspinoza 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you say this in Latin? 

message: "Tibi Magnum Innominandum, signa stellarum nigrarum et bufaniformis Sadoquae sigillum..." TheDragonMaster 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Vermis_Mysteriis#Creation --Gspinoza 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link. TheDragonMaster 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this quote translate to? 

message: I would like to pose the question as to regulation.  It is clear that as many preist and religous people in union with the Catholic Church that use Latin give deference to what the Latinas Foundation publishes that they can definatly be considered a regulatory body even if it just happens to be for Catholics.  However, there are many teachers of Classical Latin that do not go by, or more probably refuse to go by, the publications of the Latinitas Foundation and so they have made their own rules and administer a test based on those rules which do differ a lot from Church Latin.  Many teachers teach in a fashion so that their students can pass the National Latin Exam, they teach to the test in a way of speaking, and so since this test is governed by the American Classics League and any alteration by them could produce a lot of alteration in classrooms across America I feel that the issue of naming them as a regulatory body in regards to Classical Latin should be looked into. --Billiot 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulation

message: I see the article fails to name states that have historically used Latin as a form of administrative language. For one the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used Latin as an official language (although not spoken by the population). I think a mention of such states would further demonstrate this language's influence. JRWalko 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What countries used Latin?

message: This is part of its legacy as the lingua franca of the Western world for over a thousand years. Latin was only replaced in this capacity by English in the 20th century,[citation needed] though Latin continued to be used in some intellectual and political circles.
And in between, did not French ever become a lingua franca? As I remember it, the courtiers of Western Europe did not choose Latin as their preferred language. RedRabbit1983 16:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: it should be broken up. It is best to fix those sentences whenever you see them. RedRabbit1983 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: The article text reads: "Although now widely considered a dead language, with few fluent speakers and no native ones [...]", although the article Vatican City claims that the official languages are Latin and Italian. Are children in V.C. (are there, btw?) raised in Latin or not? Do people usually talk in Latin in V.C.? If so, one should probably change aforementioned "no native ones". --Gulliveig 08:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Speakers?