Talk:List of Latin phrases (A)

message: As I said on account of the Latin sayings article: 
"Now that I think about it, this has many redundancies when compared with List of Latin phrases (A–z). The sayings need to be sorted from the phrases, and that may turn out to be a subjective process at times."
What are we going to do with it? --Psotau 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-redundant sister article

message: i'm studyig it @ school... i don't understand. what does, "Anulos qui animum ostendunt omnes gestemus!!!!" mean???
Wikipedia isn't the place to get help with your Latin homework, but I would translate it as "Let us all wear rings that reveal the mind."
I'm trying to translate the following phrases (for humor value)...
"Pillage, then burn"                                                            
"Drink deeply, spit farther"                                                    
"Is this thing on?"                                                             
"You got your chocolate in my peanut butter."
I have a collection for my signature changer.  Docwhat 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: QUESTION!!!!!

message: The entry for alea jacta est currently reads:
:Said by Julius Caesar upon crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC, according to Suetonius. The original meaning was roughly equivalent to the English phrase "the game is afoot", but its modern meaning, like that of the phrase "crossing the Rubicon", denotes passing the point of no return on a momentous decision and entering into a risky endeavor where the outcome is left to chance.
On what basis do we make this claim? It seems to me that alea jacta est has it right when it says "It implies that he has taken a chance and cannot take back what he has done, much like the gambler who has wagered everything on a throw of the dice." --Iustinus 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alea Iacta est 

message: See Talk:List of Latin phrases. Edward Grefenstette 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remerge proposal 

message: Um... there is (sort of) an explanation of this at Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Um... wtf? --Iustinus 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discipuli Nostrum Bardissimi Sunt 

message: The article reads: 
:a fortiori - "from the stronger" - Loosely, "even more so" or "with even stronger reason". Often used to lead from a less certain proposition to a more evident corollary.
It seems to be the wrong explanation. I'd say, to the contrary, that "a fortiori" means "from more evident and general proposition to a less obvious one". Dart evader 12:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're mistaken. Dictionary.com defines a fortiori as "for a still stronger reason; all the more", Merriam-Webster as "with greater reason or more convincing force—used in drawing a conclusion that is inferred to be even more certain than another", MSN Encarta as "for an even stronger reason", the World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions as "much more; with a stronger or greater reason; all the more certainly; more certain or conclusive", and I'm pretty sure Amo, Amas, Amat and More confirmed the definition too. What makes you think that a fortiori refers to the preceding, rather than following, proposition? Do you have a cite or source to support this? If so, it may be a variant, archaic, or mistaken definition, in which case (with the accompanying cite) we can add it to the article. Otherwise, I think the current definition is clear, concise, and accurate. -Silence 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, on the second thought I must agree with you. I should've looked into the dictionaries myself before meddling in :-). BTW, I recently added a definition for 'dixi' into the article. Will you please check it?  Dart evader 19:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Dixi looks perfectly fine to me; a more literal translation might be "I have said (it)", in the sense of having given a speech (Locutus sum (Locuta sum for a female) being the most literal direct translation of "I have spoken" or "I have talked" in general), but "I have spoken" is a completely appropriate and accurate rendering, as far as I can tell. Thanks for the addition! Also, a related phrase, dixit ("he has spoken", or less literally "he has finished speaking" or "thus he spoke"), might be worth mentioning. -Silence 19:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a fortiori 

message: We have a problem about the "External link" etc. links in the three subpages. Actually the external link list only exists in the full list page and the link doesn't work in the subpages. I think we should have everything in one place though, so I see two solutions:
* having the links in the subpages actually point to List of Latin phrases
* putting all the sections in a subpage of List of Latin phrases and using transclusion everywhere (my favourite choice).
Opinions? --Gennaro Prota 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links, See also, etc. 

message: Half the reason to have this page is for a list of abbreviations.
It's silly for e.g. to redirect here unless, for example, there is a way to quickly look up the abbreviation, systematically. You'd get to the page and be lost. A great many of these are expressed almost solely in abbreviated form, so it would make sense to add a column for abbreviations.
Unfortunately, this would require pasting a column into each row, even if blank...perhaps someone else here has enough time to do that...--Kaz 23:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a separate page listing all Latin abbreviations, to avoid bloating this one with cross-references. -Silence 23:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: Where "an argument or proof by contrast or direct opposite" is mentioned under "a contrario", does this refer to reductio ad absurdum (also known as "proof by contradiction")? If so, either of these would be a better term to use, and it could be linked to the corresponding Wikipedia page if the reader wants a fuller definition and explanation. — Paul G 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  argumentum a contrario 

message: Isn't it a bit silly to list "exit" as a latin phrase?  I think it's just an English word at this point.  Sure, it has a latin root and the spelling didn't change, but does that really make a difference?  I am no Latin scholar, so I will not edit this myself, defering to those who may have thought about this harder. --Strait 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit 

message: If anyone more experienced than me in formatting Wiki knows how to make it so that the phrase "celerius quam asparagi coc*u*n*t*ur" could appear not censored, or at least in a form that does not engender pernicious mistakes? --Tridentinus 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asparagi 

message: The usage note on i.e. vs. e.g. should also mention viz.—msh210℠ 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i.e. vs. e.g. 

message: Njál 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, apparatus is fourth declension, so it's apparatus critici. --Iustinus 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query — what is the plural of 'apparatus criticus'? 

message: What about ab ovo as it's own part in the list? (Only ab ovo usque ad mala is listed)... It was included in the list of common lating phrases in my latin-english dictionary and I use it alot.
Leif902 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Ab ovo has a completely different meaning than "ab ovo usque ad mala", so it's evidently not just an abbreviated form.71.205.137.86 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ab ova 

message: I've been finding and correcting a lot of errors in this article, from simple misspellings ("eundum"), to mistranslations (fricat as "reprehend"), to complete butcheries ("asparagi co ur"), and so far I've only got through the A's. I really don't have time to go through them all at this point, but there's a lot of work to be done if anyone wants this list to be considered a reliable source. All my corrections come from just my basic understanding of Latin grammar, but based on the quality of some of these entries I very much suspect that other aspects which I can't so easily judge may be incorrect as well, e.g. whether certain quotations are accurately attested. Verifying these may require some major research. There are also a lot of inconsistencies in orthography, such as whether or not to use J for semivocalic I, and even a few entries which are listed with both variations. Many of the notes seem a bit dubious as well, and others are lacking altogether.
The note for "celerius quam asparagi cocuntu" (corrected text) indicates that this is a variant of another similar phrase: "velocius quam asparagi coquantur". But why isn't this other phrase listed as well? Both get a signification number of google hits. I also had to correct a part of the note which said that this variant uses a different tense of the verb, when it in fact uses the same tense but a different mood. Coquantur is in the present tense just like cocuntur (alternate spelling of coquuntur), but it is subjunctive rather than indicative. A better translation of "velocius quam asparagi coquantur" would thus be "more quickly than asparagus can be cooked" ("can" reflecting the use of the potential subjunctive).
71.205.137.86 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  many errors and inconsistencies 

message: The article should say that people may abbreviate either as  'et al.'  (with a full stop, as in Ph.D.) or  'et al'  (without a full stop, as in PhD).  The modern usage is without the full stops. NerdyNSK 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  et al. and et al 

message: There seems to be a proliferation of mottos, including mottos relating to fictional characters. I am interested to know what other peoples opinions are as I am keen to see them removed. It seems that there is a general growth in mottos from things of differing levels of notability. F. Ex. the motto of the mayoral office for the fictional TV show "the simpsons" is given, as well as for football clubs, military units, girl's schools and even the fictional motto for the school that the character harry potter attends. This information seems to be somewhat trivial, even for a list article. I will check back in a few days to see what people have to say, and may delete the information if no-one objects too much. 121.44.112.223 09:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also noticed several family mottos, which are not (a) verafible and (b) notable. I will erase these. 121.44.112.223 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mottos? 

message: Ideally we would be able to click on each phrase and automatically hear the pronunciation of the phrase (per thefreedictionary.com).  Maybe someone who can pronounce these all correctly could take an afternoon to dictate the pronunciations.  There may be an easier solution, but wouldn't it facilitate the project better (and save people humiliation) if the article taught them how to say the phrases as well?
:But we have 3 traditions for pronouncing Latin in English. Varlaam (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming most people know latin pronunciation?

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-03-29 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I have edited "aquila non capit muscas" into "aquila non capit muscam" that is the right Latin form. The word "muscas" does not exist in Latin, it was invented by an American writer who wrote a book with this title. In Latin musca=fly has the plural musci=flies. The -am/-um suffix is always the accusative case.  I agree with the guy before that said there are a lot of mistakes and inconsistencies here. Sorry for my English, trust me I am much better at Latin (coming from a Latin country). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.147.61 (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  muscas - muscam 

message: On this page it's listed as 'aquila non capit muscas', but on another page it's listed as 'aquila non captat muscas'. I did a google search and both seem to be used, but which is correct? Or are they both correct? BulbaThor (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be both, depending whether it's based on capere, capiō or its frequentative captāre, captō which mean almost the same thing: capture, seize vs. strive to seize. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, fair enough, thanks :) BulbaThor (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eagle does not catch flies" question 

message: The following is not just wrong but silly as an explanation of age quod agis:  "Literally translated, it means "Drive, because you are driven"; figuratively it means "keep going, because you are inspired or dedicated to do so"."  The words actually mean "do (or pursue) what you do (or pursue)".  The word quod is the relative pronoun without antecedent as often, not the conjunction "because".  The phrase probably means "pursue that which you are fitted by nature to pursue."  (I don't know how to open a separate window.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.144.221 (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally it says Age [do] quod [what] agis [you are doing]. So it comes out as "do what you are doing". Schools with this motto say it means for them, "do what you are doing well" despite the lack of bene [well]. The phrase can perfectly well read as "focus on what you are doing" or as an insult "mind your own business" as it was used in George Cosmatis' film Tombstone. Respecter (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: age quod agis

message: You need to find a competent Latinist to check all your translations and interpretations.  ab epistulis refers to an Imperial office literally "in charge of letters=correspondence".  It is  functionary in charge of the imperial correspondence.  The word ab can mean "in the area of" and was used of other imperial posts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.144.221 (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ab epistulis