Talk:Lingua ignota

message: I think the nilzmaiz should read hilzmaiz. There are other typos consistent with rapid typing on  (such as stignmatum for stigmatum). dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm not so sure she was ever made a saint... Anyone with access to a list of currently valid saints of various denominations? --Kaleissin 12:50:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
"No formal canonization has ever taken place, but her name is in the Roman Martyrology and her feast is celebrated in the Dioceses of Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Limburg, also in the Abbey of Solesmes, where a proper office is said." 
--Jim Henry | Talk 20:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that dab has just deleted the "St." again.  Any particular reason, given the evidence of her veneration given in the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited above?  Formal canonization processes don't go back all that far, after all; many saints from that period and earlier were canonized informally rather than via the modern process.  I would say that her name appearing in the Roman Martyrology is probably sufficient. --Jim Henry 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, not that I care too much about it, but the discussion of this point is probably for theHildegard of Bingen article. "St." afaik means "formally canonized", or at least should, for the purposes of objectiveness. In general: No honorifics on Wikipedia. If we have "St. Hildegard" here, people will be equally free to add "PBUH" to every mention of Muhammad, "His Holiness" to any mention of Popes or Dalai Lamas, "Guru Swamiji" to any mention of Prabhupada or Sai Baba, etc.. I don't think we want to go there... dab (ᛏ) 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Restricting the title Saint to formally canonised saints would exclude the Apostles, which would be silly. However, I'm not sure what the criterion is for calling someone a saint when the tradition of veneration predates the formal canonisation process. --PeteBleackley 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See the explanation in the Hildegard of Bingen article. She was beatified - and as such has a legitimate public cult and is included in the Martyrology - but attempts at canonisation failed four times. It is therefore not correct to describe her as a "recognised saint of the Roman Catholic Church" - wording I have now removed. Vilĉjo (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hildegard" or "St. Hildegard"? 

message: here is another portion of the glossary I scraped off the internet, unfortunately without the original Latin/OHG translations:
* Hoil ("head"),
* Hochziz ("blindman"),
* Pasizio ("leper"),
* Ceril ("brain"),
* Ornalziriz ("curly hair"),
* Luzeia ("eye"),
* Luzerealz ("eye-socket"),
* Moniz ("mouth"),
* Gulzia ("gullet"),
* Laniscal ("breast"),
* Tirziel ("loins"),
* Scorinz ("heart"),
* Tilzia ("womb"),
* Manguiz ("excrement"),
* Creueniz ("scrotum"),
* Fragizlanz ("pudendum"),
* Minscol ("ulcer"),
* Razil ("poison"),
* Cruniz ("leg"),
* Funiz ("foot"),
* Maluizia ("whore"),
* Deiezio ("dwarf"),
* Logizkal ("giant"),
* Ornalzanzia ("hairband"),
* Naczuon ("necklace"), 
*Rasinz ("veil"),
* Ausiz ("hemlock"), 
*Galigiz ("cumin"),
* Pigizia ("savory"),
* Maschin ("valerian"),
* Clanzga ("tansy"),
* Nascuil ("deadly nightshade"),
* Pazia ("henbane"),
* Brumsil ("birthwort"),
* Nozia ("screech owl"), 
*Ualueria ("bat"),
* Luxzia ("butterfly"),
* Zinzrinz ("winding staircase").
dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPRSTUXZ
so these 21 letters are certainly in her alphabet. I doubt that she had the idea to use single letters for sc or ph, but I imagine that the two additional letters are Q and Y, so that Hildegard's 23 letters are equivalent to the 23 letters of the Latin alphabet (as it was from 100 BC to 1400 or so). It should be easy enough to identify them based on letter frequency, with a small corpus. The problem is that the corpus appears to be unpublished, so you'd have to get to see the Wiesbaden codex directly. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: glossary

message: Why is this classified as an international auxiliary language? That seems inaccurate. 2601:98A:4002:2140:8192:12D5:E695:90CD (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: International auxlang?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lingua Ignota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110160747/http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_linguaignota.htm to http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_linguaignota.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where you got this from?
There is no "maler" in the Wiesbaden Codex, but matr: 
https://hlbrm.digitale-sammlungen.hebis.de/handschriften-hlbrm/content/pageview/450555
The codex "Berlin, Staatsbibl., Ms. lat. qu. 674" — mater and moder:
https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN654043922&PHYSID=PHYS_0125&DMDID=DMDLOG_0002
The publication of the list of Roth (1879) — mater again: 
https://archive.org/details/diealthochdeutsc03steiuoft/page/390/mode/2up?view=theater
And someone spreaded this mistake on all non-english-language editions of Wikipedia. ROR (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "maler (sic)" for mater in Glossary section