Talk:List of Latin phrases (P)

message: I posted this but there's a bit of uncertainty on my part.  The uncertainty in reference to the case ending of media/medio.  I have found both out on the net.  I was taught media...50 years ago.  So, I'm a little concerned about memory corruption and I don't have access to my books at this time.  Feel free to fix it if it requires fixing.  Begs (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: See Talk:List of Latin phrases. Edward Grefenstette 15:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remerge proposal 

message: Is sola lingua bona lingua mortua really Dog Latin? Granted it's not an ancient expression, granted it's not the most idiomatic phrasing, but normally I think of "Dog Latin" as being more like solus linguisticus benus est mortis or something the like. THis is real Latin words, and real Latin grammar.
As for whether or not Dog Latin/Mock Latin/Latinitas Culinaria phrases should be in this list, surprisingly I think they should stay, but be strongly and plainly marked as such. Why? Because the list is not necessarily intended for people who already speak Latin. The problem with Mock Latin is that people often spread the joke without "getting" it. How many people, apparently, think that Illegitimis Nil Carborundum or Semper Ubi Sub Ubi is real Latin? They should be able to look them up on the relevant page and find out the truth.
We used to have such phrases in their own section, which made sense at the time. Now (given that we have broken this up into smaller pages, then created a master page that combines them like templates) I'm not so sure that would work. --Iustinus 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about the lookup issue. My first idea was to put a (templated) message on top of the page along the lines of: "You may be looking for a moch Latin phrase. --Gennaro Prota 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All mock, garbled, dog, pseudo-, etc. Latin should be listed just like the normal Latin, but with the comments clearly noting that it's not a true Latin phrase. We already have a large number of such phrases in any cases, like "Busiris", and simply leave them untranslated to make it clear that they mean nothing (or mean nonsense) in Latin. -Silence 12:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence, what do you think of setting a different background color for such phrases? That would be a nice way to separate them out. --Iustinus 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I'm not sure it's necessary, and sometimes phrases are "borderline dog latin", such as phrases with proper grammar but fabricated vocabulary, or ones which do have a meaning in Latin, but not the one intended by the originator. But I don't mind the idea in general of using unobtrusive background colors for some phrases, if we end up deciding on an important distinguishing trait that'd work well with that. -Silence 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. We'll have to consider that. It's probably a good idea to mull that over in any case. I for one would generally still count Medieval Latin as "real", even if it contains non-classical words. --Iustinus 23:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but complications arise when we try to draw the line between new Latin words that constitute "real Latin" and new Latin words that constitute "dog Latin"; the distinction is often arbitrary, as in both cases such vocabulary words often have illegitimate or dubious histories, frequently are borrowed from non-Italic/Romance (even non-Indo-European) languages, are vulgar or bizarre, etc. There's nothing new to that; only the distancing effect of posterity has caused us to view Medieval Latin as "real" while modern quasi-Latin is "fake", when in reality many modern dog Latin phrases are many times more well-written (i.e., more in the classical style) than much of that Medieval hogwash. :) In the end, it's just too tricky a distinction to make; even distinguishing between humorous and non-humorous Latin phrases is a major task, and, like distinguishing "dog Latin" from "real Latin", risks heavily POVing the list with uncited prescriptivism. But I agree with you that it's a very good thing for us to think about and muddle over. -Silence 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Latin 

message: :technica impendi nationi||"Technology impulses nations"||Motto of Polytechnical University of Madrid 
What? I can't construe the Latin, nor am I sure what "impulses" means (perhaps "impells"?) --Iustinus 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technica Impendi Nationi 

message: I was about to delete the recently added qui prodest, assuming it was a mistake similar to qui bono, but I note that it gets a huge number of google hits, and it is conceivable that it is not incorrect: this could be the other quî that means "how." Anyone know anything about this phrase? --Iustinus 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I added that phrase, because I`ve used for a long time, and I`ve never guesses that it might by spurious. I don`t speak latin however, and I guess that you may be right (check the saying Beatus, qui prodest, quibus potest, meaning "who is lucky the one who gets an advantage"). AdoniCtistai 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you were right! There`s already cui prodest meaning	"for whom it advances" . Guess I have learned something new today :D It`s cui, not qui. Thank you Iustinus! AdoniCtistai 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qui Prodest 

message: I came across this in a journal article.  It doesn't seem to be widely used, and I don't know enough to tell whether the grammar is correct.  (See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_di_and_the_astonishingly_t.php.)  Antonym is apparently 'sensu largo'.  ...Actually, it seems to be more popular in German:  even the article I read was written (in English) by a German.
128.250.204.118 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sensu strictu' or 'Sensu stricto' or 'Stricto sensu' 

message: And how about adding this??
128.250.204.118 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post partum 

message: I am continually irritated by Latin phrases abbreviated (or rather ellipted?) to lose their literal meaning.  As in "de facto" — de facto what?  "Pro bono" — pro bono whom?  et cetera.
Whereas de facto can precede many words, if "pro bono" is generally only ever used with "publico", then can't it be listed in full under the 'Latin' column??  And if not, then please enlighten me!
128.250.204.118 09:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: I don't know much Latin.
:The above phrase I found on the Title Page of a 1920 book by publisher Small, Maynard & Company. Will some please work on the stub I've commenced?
::Thanks, Ludvikus 04:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means "to know what ought to be known". 71.205.137.86 06:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scire quod sciendum]]

message: Someone added the following:
:Pimentatis Anus Outrem Refrescum Est||"Pimenta no Cú dos outros é Refresco"||Expressão muito utilizada no jargão popular brasileiro.
This was promptly deleted as fake Latin. Fair enough, but we have a number of other fake Latin phrases, clearly marked as such, on the list. Perhaps if this motto is indeed significant it shoudl be included under that rubric. --Iustinus 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrescumne? 

message: Para bellum - "for war" - used typically to indicate that something was manufactured for the purpose of war, such as ammunition or armaments. Can be used to denote support or approval for a war or conflict. 
"Para" in the sense of "for" may exist in Spanish and Italian, however it does not exist in Latin language. "For war" would be "pro bello" in Latin.
62.47.59.74 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  para bellum =/= for war 

message: This is not a Latin phrase, just an English word of Latinate derivation. Prae prandio would be the correct Latin form if this were an actual Latin phrase. The given translation "before the time before midday" is also incorrect. Prae prandio means "before lunch," not "before midday" (which of course is ante meridiem). 71.205.137.86 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and post-prandial for the same reason - it's perfectly good English! CharlesSpencer (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Pre prandial" 

message: In Akhil Reed Amar's book, "America's Constitution: A Biography" (p.221), the legal phrase referred to here is spelled "quamdiu SE bene gesseriNt" (differences in caps). Don't know enough Latin or law to know if these are both acceptable alternatives, but a quick Google of "bene gesserit" seems to turn up only references to Frank Herbert's novel, "Dune", while a search for "bene gesserint" returns references to the legal phrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.206.164 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quamdiu Bene Gesserit 

message: I'm not sure who put in the pronunciation guide to "vice versa," but I've never heard of anyone pronouncing the Vs as Ws.  Also, unless I've far missed my mark, Cs followed by Es are pronounced as either "ch."  I'm pretty sure the correct pronunciation should be "vee che versa."  Any thoughts? Matthearn (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice Versa 

message: If the story that he sent the telegram saying "Peccavi" is apocryphal, does that not mean that he didn't actually do it, & therefore the story should read "alleged" &/or "supposed", & "this would have been the most terse telegram", etc.? FlaviaR (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Napier

message: Should this not be "post coitum"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.33.220 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: post coitus

message: Should this not be 'Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Lars 09:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbis Terrarum 

message: certainly the phrase is recent and ironic, but is it correct? Can "altus" mean "deep"/"lofty" in the English metaphorical sense? Alternatives suggested: gravis, summus, profundus, here: http://community.livejournal.com/linguaphiles/3715218.html Orbis 3 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur

message: pace and pace tua are modern Italian, not Latin. They should probably be removed from this list. Dracogen (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for paring down this list, but I'm not convinced it's modern Italian; see Seneca and  "pace tua" at Google. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. While these are modern Italian as well, I have confirmed that "pace" does indeed mean "in peace" in Latin as well. Dracogen (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: pace

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-03-29 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I remember seeing it on this page before - has it gotten removed? If so, why was it removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.220.28 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  perge modo 

message: "Per se" does not mean "in itself." "Per se" means "through itself." "In se" means "in itself."Lestrade (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: per se

message: It seems to me that there is almost nothing right about the entry "potest solum unum". First of all, unless I'm missing something, it's not grammatically correct - solum is an adverb, so unchanging, but unus is either (a) an adjective which declines to unum in the masculine accusative, or (b) the neuter nominative, which makes the attribution wrong, because in the movie "there can be only one" winner of the prize - all contestants being people and therefore not neuter. "There can [be] only one" can be simplified and reversed (with the unstated verb "to be" eliminated for clarity) to "only one can", where "only one" is clearly the subject of the verb "can", and therefore must be in the nominative. Also (and this is pure WP:OR), I've seen Highlander dozens of times and I don't remember this Latin form of the film's catch-phrase at all. Oh, and please don't anyone cite this  Forbes article in defence of preserving this entry - it quotes this very Wikipedia article as its basis! So: grammatically wrong, no easily apparent evidence of existence not linked to this definition, and dubious citation. I'd call that a delete, personally... Views? CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That entry was made by 216.8.177.74 on 8 February 2012. It ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlander