Disputatio:Lingua Anglica

message: sorry, I'm a beginner in Latin. I used this page to try out the :Formula:Lingua template. After doing so, it wasn't the best choice because of the various places which english is spoken and is official, I'm confused which countries to put in "civitas" and which to put in "nationes". If anyone could translate the Genetic classification language classes (like "West Germanic") that would be great. Revolutio (disputatio)  03:39, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

message: *Habetne lingua Anglica casus tres? Fortasse linguae est pronomina nominativa accusativaque ('I' vs 'me', &c), sed nomina non declinantur, et non est casus genitivus, nisi estimamus 's exemplum esse.
*Does the English language have three cases? Perhaps the language has object and subject prounouns ('I' vs. 'me', &c.), but nouns are not declined and there is no genitive case, unless we count s'.  Vneiomazza 16:38, 7 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dificile dictu... Ita habet tres casus, ac in scholis non docentur, et 99.9% americanorum numquam umquam in no modo non audierunt casuum... ratio ut in lingua ipsorum sunt casus eis numquam occurit. Grammatici inter se differunt...alteri putant 's gentivum esse, alteri non. Quippe in lingua anglica antiqua, et media, genetivus terminatus in es, cf kynges men, et 's est contractio formae huius. Alteri putant existere "casus praepositus" cf of whom, by whom, for whom, at praeter pronomina, genitivus est casus solus qui clariter operat. To be clear, I would definitely say that there are three cases, with the probably existence of a prepositional case. But we determine case by word order, not inflection, with the exception of pronouns and genitives. Did I help? =] --Ioshus Rocchio 17:13, 7 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English cases / Casus in lingua Anglica 

message: Hopefully this clears up the case thing: Verba plurima solos quattuor fines habet: unicum pluralemque, nominativum et genitivum.
I'm not sure if the last part is grammatically correct, however. Also,
Puto est disputabilis dicere "flexura Anglica simplicior est quam lingua Latina." Lingua Anglica etiam complicata est.  Illud non est mediam.
I think it's debatable to say that English is simpler than Latin. They're both very complicated in their own way.  This seems to me like a breach of neutrality.--Bradgib 18:01, 11 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  attempted fix on case thing, lack of neutrality 

message: Nomen Lingua Anglicana nunc addidimus quoniam attestationem hodie invenimus in poemate quod Samuel Johnson lexicographus anno 1772 composuit. Sententia est subtitulus poematis "ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ": "Post Lexicon Anglicanum Auctum et Emendatum" (in Anglicum conversa: "After Enlarging and Correcting the English Dictionary"). IacobusAmor 04:49, 13 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguae nomen

message: Dixit pagina: "Cum linguis Anglica antiqua, Saxonica, Frisica, Theodisca, et Batava Germanicum occidentale conformat." Quid hoc significat? "with old english, saxon, ... it forms/outlines/molds western german??" Haud correctum est nonne?--Rafaelgarcia 17:54, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's presumably trying to say that A, A antiqua, S, F, T, & B constitute the western branch of Proto-Germanic (a branch of Proto-Indo-European). In Vicipaedia, lingua Germanica non est lingua Theodisca. IacobusAmor 19:18, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguae Germanicae conformare?

message: I'm a beginner of Latin, but I think it should be: lingua e linguis, not ex linguis. [Scripsit  78.153.35.53]
replies: text: Both are correct.--Rafaelgarcia 19:55, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Secundum Cassell's: "ex before vowels always; e often before consonants." IacobusAmor 20:19, 18 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's why I use ex beofre vowels and usually Google what is more common before consonants; here e linguis wins, but the difference is tiny. Gabriel Svoboda 05:32, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ex / e linguis 

message: De "‎// when using bare ' like Jesus' which is the more traditional form." 84.161.58.151, amice ignote, are you saying Jesus and Jesus'  are always pronounced the same? Perhaps, but in my idiolect (North America), and probably in that of many others, the latter is three syllables: Je-zs-z. Also, rather than "//" maybe some sign for zero could be used? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:56, 21 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not always, but sometimes or just always for some people or regions. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Jesus#Usage_notes puts it as: "The possessive of the Jesus may be either Jesus’s (pronounced with three syllables) or Jesus’ (pronounced with two syllables). The latter form was traditionally more common [...]". Ø sometimes does indicate a zero, but it is not universally understood, that is, it requires some explanation, and is it also used for sounds? -84.161.35.144 19:25, 20 Octobris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus