Talk:List of Latin legal terms

message: The page needs pronunciations and audio pronunciations.
The latin term for "buyer beware"?
:Caveat emptor. Kurando | ^_^ 10:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've unlinked Eo nomine, as the full text of that article was: Eo nomine is a latin term for "by the name."  I made that article a redirect here.  The article could be revived if it could be expanded to be more than one sentence, or perhaps the definition could be put into this article.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: eo nomine

message: This article, in its present state, is not much more useful than its corresponding category.  It would be improved immensely if instead of simply listing the terms, brief definitions were also provided.  This would assist readers to find what they're looking for. —Psychonaut 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  I came here looking to find which term has the meaning I want, but no help.  Hard to believe no progress has been made on this in almost four years!  --Lasunncty (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand this article

message: No really, what does it mean? Comradeash (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubia in meliora partem interpretari debent?

message: I have the feeling that it should be called:
"List of Latin legal terms" and not
"List of legal Latin terms".
But I'm not sure!
Just think of it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.214.179 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly, it should be "List of Legal Latin [as opposed to real Latin] terms".  The word order is OK, the capitalization isn't. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tevildo, I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Is Legal Latin a separate language from Latin?  --Lasunncty (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is. English Law Latin is fake Latin. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title (syntax-wise) 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prout patet per recordum was closed as a merge, perhaps to this article.  Unfortunately, this article is not in a state where definitions could be easily plugged in.  If anyone has a suggestion for other merge targets, or wants to find a way to incorporate definitions into this article, it would be welcome.  Powers T 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've only really looked at the A's so far, but I think "a priori assumption" ought to be removed since it's the same as "a priori" as far as I can tell. Also, I think "adjournment sine die" ought to be changed to "sine die" since the word "adjournment" is English, not Latin. I'll change it in a bit if no one objects. ajpruns (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: All the same term but different 2 different spellings plus the original root. Added all three in left hand column. Please advise a better way to show this situation -- which might be common.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruxisme (talk • 
contribs) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  status quo, status quo ante, and statu quo added

message: Vis Major existed in the table. I have added Casus Fortunitus. I have also added a reference from Vis Major to Force Majeure -- which is the more common term used in law when describing Acts of God (exempli gratia: H.M.S. Bounty destroyed by Hurricane Sandy, October 29, 2012 <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/pictures/121030-hms-bounty-sinks-science-nation-sandy-weather/>). Vis Major would be used to describe the strength of Hurricane Sandy and casus fortuitus would describe the H.M.S. Bounty being at the wrong place when Hurricane Sandy came up the coast. I am not sure whether a reference to the French legal terms is appropriate. Bruxisme (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vis Major (Latin) "superior force"; Force majeure "act of god"; and casus fortuitus (Latin) "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident" 

message: I'm not a legal expert of any sort but I'm having a very hard time imagining "dramatis personae" finding its way into legal writing too terribly often. Is that kosher?98.17.202.244 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the comment was some time ago, but a at 2023, it is very common to now have a dramatis personae for large cases to list all of the players so that judges do not have to try to remember who is whom. 109.147.91.26 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatis Personae? 

message: The list states that the definition of the term "Contradictio in adjecto" is a "A contradiction in terms." The article on "Contradictio in adjecto" however states that it is a "a contradiction between parts of an argument" and that it defers from a contradiction in terms. The articles contradict each other, so obviously, at least one of them is wrong. I do not know which one is right, but I'm pointing it out so someone who does can fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadej Andoljšek (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake on "Contradictio in adjecto" 

message: Actioning the AfD discussion from 2009. Tevildo (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merged 

message: "Defalcation" is not a Latin word. It doesn't belong here. Most English words have Latin roots; that does not mean that they are Latin words or terms. Mrnorwood (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  defalcation 

message: Currently, the page says the following:
    a posteriori 	from later 	An argument derived from subsequent event
    a priori 	from earlier 	An argument derived from previous event
I believe that this is wrong, even completely backwards. Suggested change:
    a posteriori: "An argument derived after the event, having the knowledge about the event"
    a priori: "An argument derived before the event, without needing to have the knowledge about the event"
Any comments?
Misof (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a priori" and "a posteriori" 

message: What is "ex inf" and how is it different (if it is) from "ex rel?" 2605:A601:46D:B01:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very late reply, but I'll include it here in case anybody finds it useful: "ex inf" means "information supplied by", and is generally used in a reference work to indicate that the source of a piece of information has come informally from a person rather than from a published source.  A random example: see the Victoria County History of Wiltshire: Volume 10.  The borough of Devizes: Religious and cultural history (click here).  The text refers to a charity connected to the parish church and states "The payments were still made in 1971" supported by footnote 85.  This footnote says "Ex inf. Mr. E. E. Lake, chwdn.", which means that the writers of this volume spoke to the churchwarden and he told them that (previously unpublished) information.  In summary, "ex. inf." is not a legal term as such, and so is distinct from "ex. rel.".  Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ex inf? 

message: The definition of the term given in the article is incorrect. The correct definition is the one given on Wiktionary: "Empty land; land not legally belonging to anyone." It is possible for territory not to be incorporated in states, but still considered not to be terra nullius. ImTheIP (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Terra Nullius 

message: The presentation of "adjournment sine die" in the leftmost column of the table, in which all three words are italicized, seems wrong. Because (unless I am egregiously mistaken) the word "adjournment" is not Latin; only the "sine die" is, which would suggest that only the words sine die should be in italics, while the word "adjournment" should not be italicized. Toddcs (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, have changed. Awbfiend (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: adjournment sine die

message: The following entry,
"ad hominem 	at the person 	Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. 	/ˌæd ˈhɒmɪnɛm/"
 
is incorrect. It is a common, popular, and probably ineradicable, solecism, but it's wrong.
"Ad" means "to." It desn't mean "at."
 
An ad hominem is an argument to the biases or special position or knowledge of the recipient.
It is a seduction by guile, not an attack of any kind.
The entry in Merriam Webster which for some years seemed to support the definition given here (and a couple of other places in Wikipedia) is simply an error. Like Doctor Johnson's "pastern: the knee of a horse," it is ignorance, pure ignorance. It dates from an unfortunate period of demoticism when Merriam Webster were lending their not large legitimacy to anything any idiot said anywhere. That period in their life is now over.
 
Sadly it persists here in wikipedia.
PS, "Pastern - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastern
The pastern is a part of the leg of a horse between the fetlock and the top of the hoof. It incorporates the long pastern bone (proximal phalanx) and the short pastern bone (middle phalanx), which are held together by two sets of paired ligaments to form the pastern joint (proximal interphalangeal joint)."
 
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "ad hominem" is Incorrect. 

message: I propose to merge Quae ipso usu consumuntur into List of Latin legal terms. 
The merger is proposed as an alternative to deletion. Quae ipso usu consumuntur fails WP:GNG: while the expression is used a handful of times per decade in the literature, it's impossible to find sources that cover the topic "directly and in detail". It is perfectly at home as an entry in this list: in fact I already went ahead and included it . 
This merger is—surprisingly—not uncontroversial because the article was WP:REFUNDed in 2016 . JBchrch talk 14:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hi. Please, would you add "de auditu" and "de visu"? I can't write in English enough, sorry. --Montag313 (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "de auditu" 

message: This is a perfectly good English word, not Latin. It should be removed. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extant 

message: The definition has it backwards, no? The point is that the gods should punish blasphemy, not the state. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  deorum injuriae diis curae 

message: Sorry for the inconvenience and ignorance. I'm watching a documentary which says a latin title (or sentence) which I cannot determine. I would be grateful if someone would help me out, and also we could add it here if it fits. It is in a documentary called "After the Crossing", and at the minute 4:10, the narrator says: "Andrew Brouwer is a University of Toronto Legal Clinic's Persona (something in latin)". It could also be, of course, that im getting the words wrong and it isnt even latin. If someone would check it out i'd be grateful. Thanks. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persona vel Sindrum/Cindrum ? 

message: I see the table lists the masculine "et alii" for et al. I suppose that's not technically wrong if the the other things being referenced are masculine; however, I have always seen this in the neuter "et alia." I the neuter is the safest default choice for lists of people, organizations, or documents.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/et_al
Also, with et seq., I have never seen the present active participle "sequens" there. Again, I have always seen it written as sequitur. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/et_seq  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.198.27 (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  et al. and et seq. 

message: This article makes great use of anchors, but visual anchors could improve the result. We could keep using  for the alphabetical sorting (A, B, C...), and use  for the actual list entries (cfr. List of Etruscan mythological figures#Deities). Here's a list of ways to write the same thing:
* 
* 
* 
* , when no link is needed.
The latter could also heavily reduce the page weight.
 Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Est. 2021: Not a simple ask. This gets us most of the way there—:%s/^\s*|\s*\s*\(\|\[\[\)\+\(.\{-}\)\(\|\]\]\)\+/\=(submatch(1) ==# submatch(3) && strlen(submatch(1)) >= 2)?"|":submatch(0) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchors