Disputatio:Pagina prima

E Victionario
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere

Gradationes[+/-]

  • 23 Octobris 2004: prae verbum quingentesimum (500.) additum est!
  • 21 Decembris 2004: Lutetium verbum millesimum (1 000.) additum est!
  • 29 Martii 2005: vallée verbum 1 500. additum est!
  • 6 Iunii 2005: jaki verbum 2 000. additum est!
  • 11 Augusti 2005: 岩木山 verbum 2 500. additum est!
  • 5 Octobris 2005: caay verbum 3 000. additum est!
  • 6 Ianuarii 2006: onca verbum 3 500. additum est!
  • 30 Maii 2006: nahuati verbum 4 000. additum est!
  • 8. Ianuarii 2007: thermae verbum 4 500. additum est!
  • 5. Septembris 2007: baroness verbum 5 000. additum est!
  • 27. Aprilis 2008: polonium verbum 5 500. additum est!
  • 23. Aprilis 2009: тантал verbum 6 000. additum est!
  • 17. Maii 2010: վանադիում verbum 6 500. additum est!
  • 5. Iulii 2010: antimon verbum 7 000. additum est!
  • 31. Iulii 2010: жизнь verbum 7 500. additum est!
  • 26. Decembris 2010: kobber verbum 8 000 additum est!

quo modo 'Victionarium' sonatur?[+/-]

non ut latine sonatur [ˌwiktʃioːˈnaːrium], sed [ˌwιktιoːˈnaːrιũ].

Pt[+/-]

Hi! could you put a link to the portuguese wiktionary in the mainpage, please? 82.154.22.49 18:46 mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! There already is. Portuguese in Latin is usually "lingua Lusitana" (from Lusitania, the Roman name for the region, though Portugal itself was later called Portugallia). The main page already has a link "Lusitanice" ("in Portuguese") though "Lusitane" is a better spelling and I will change that now. —Myces Tiberinus 04:53 apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

lluvia

Mistake[+/-]

Hi, I've just found a mistake on the mainpage: "Hoc temporis" is in my opinion wrong, right would be "Hoc tempore" because it's an "ablativus temporis". Or am I very much mistaken there? Shanul "obliviscisti" non est latine sed "oblitus es"

Well, in truth, I didn't add that. It seems to be mildly common on Google... but I could possibly change it to something more transparent. [done]. —Myces Tiberinus 03:55 mai 16, 2005 (UTC)

Language collums[+/-]

Why are the language collums on the side if there is a specific section on the front page for the other languages? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 01:30, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you counting the interwiki links as content? —Myces Tiberinus 07:12, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

porta communis[+/-]

This link points to a non-existant page in Wikipedia. It should point to the Latin Wiktionary's Community Portal. How do people ask questions and discuss things here?

Fixed it. The standard area would be Victionarium:Taberna. —Myces Tiberinus 10:38, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Vicifons linguae Graecae[+/-]

vobis nuntio propositum esse Vicifontem aliam creari lingua Graeca scriptam, in qua opera Graecorum habeamus. valde igitur mihi placeat si mihi adiuvetis ut eis, in quibus summum imperium est, suadeatur. -- Nema Fakei VII Kal. Jun.

Numerals[+/-]

Quoting from the main page:

  • 30. Maii 2006: nahuati verbum 4 000. additum est!
  • 6. Ianuarii 2006: onca verbum 3 500. additum est!
  • 5. Octobris 2005: caay verbum 3 000. additum est!
  • 11. Augusti 2005: 岩木山 verbum 2 500. additum est!
  • 6. Iunii 2005: jaki verbum 2 000. additum est!

Shouldn't these be MM, MML, MMM, MMML, and MMMM? :-) And why are there dots after the numbers?!? -- 82.78.106.131 11:08, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC) (en:w:User:Jokes_Free4Me)

Presumably because e.g. "1 000" is "mille" while "1 000." is "millesim." (the ending, whatever the grammar may call on it to be, being deleted). English, which doesn't bother declining its adjectives, just sticks the "th", "nd" or "rd" on the end. Number formats are a tricky thing really and apparently in Latin depend chiefly on the underlying language of the people using them. Against the Roman numerals the gist of the argument is "Latin is not Roman"; the rule for wiki* is given at w:Vicipaedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_(latine)/en — which recommends words for small numbers and Arabic numerals for large numbers. —Myces Tiberinus 01:12, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Procurator Cynegii[+/-]

Is the translation Procurer of Dogs ??

Wikipedia

I tried a bunch of different Latin dictionaries and translators on the Internet without any luck. 65.94.115.87 01:28, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Dogs? No, it means, basically, steward of the hunt. Cynegium, from Greek κυνήγιον (cynegion), means hunting, or the hunt (pure Latin venatio) [1]. A procurator is a person put in charge of anything (the meaning is the same for English procurator) [2]. We don't have entries for these words here yet, so I have included links to the dictionaries at Perseus. —Myces Tiberinus 01:02, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I should append that this seems to be a late term, and it's possible that cynegium acquired some extra senses than it had in Greek, but it is impossible for it to mean 'dogs' because in this construction it is unequivocally singular. —Myces Tiberinus 01:06, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention that the sources I find mentioning 'procurator cynegii' indicate that it appears to be disputed whether the actual reading is that or 'procurator gynecii' (a medieval spelling of gynaeceum, normally meaning 'harem', though the understanding of the term attaching to this reading is that it refers to a factory where clothes were made). —Myces Tiberinus 01:19, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
The spelling is definitely "procurator cynegii" for the reference originally cited. 70.48.54.147 22:37, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but is the reference originally cited the original reference for the term, or did it decide arbitrarily on one form or the other for its own purpose? —Mucius Tever 10:42, 24 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Redirection[+/-]

We should have redirect pages, like in Wikipedia. This would facilitate finding words if they are entered in a different declension, conjugation, et cetera. E.g.: if you enter "Laeta", you should be redirected to "Laetus".

en.wiktionary decided against it (en:WT:REDIR) ages ago, mainly because it's pretty much impracticable, and the same is true for us even though we don't give inflected/alternative forms full entries. For example, laeta is not only a Latin word (there seems to be a lot outside of taxonomic Latin at google:laeta but I don't have time to hunt them all down right now). Also, redirecting silently gives little information on the reason one is being redirected; this is what the 'affines' lines are for. —Mucius Tever 00:11, 28 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
Best way for this is to mention inflections, e.g. zytha & zythum. Though: appellatio most likely isn't needed on inflected forms as one usually just needs the pronunciation of nom.sg. and nom.pl. and they should be present in the not inflected form (at least in English with crossing out "nom." and in German).

Novissima[+/-]

Ubi nunc sunt Victionarium:Novissima? --Alex1011 19:28, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

Numquam talem paginam habuimus. —Mucius Tever 23:35, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
Quid habemus ad laevam partem paginis sub "navigationem"? Et id: [[3]]? --Alex1011 12:23, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

Confudi hac cum pagina: [4]. --Alex1011 12:49, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

Coniugatio verborum Latinorum[+/-]

Why the verbs of the first conjugation don't have the passive forms (e.g. amo, 1.)? Why didn't you add these forms? Ivan.milicic3510 21:37, 20 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

?? They have: amo. --Alex1011 08:21, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
I thought, perfect and pluperfect passive. Ivan.milicic3510 14:30, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
But you have "amatus" and sum, so you can make these forms. --Alex1011 18:48, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
Right, on the individual word pages we want in particular to show the forms of the word itself. Something like "amatus sum" is not a form of the verb 'amo' per se, but a collocation generated by the grammar from the participle and the copula to produce a meaning there is no verb form for. (Compare how the English Wiktionary lists the parts of eat as eats, eating, ate, eaten—while is eating, has eaten, etc. are not listed.) When we do treat these periphrastic constructions, they would probably go on Auxilium:Coniugatio Latina. —Mucius Tever 04:48, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Subpaginae[+/-]

Cur subpaginis utimur? (vide exempli gratia paginam de verbo de) Cur non omnia verba idem scripta eadem in pagina ponamus, ut alia faciunt Victionaria? Mattie 21:46, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Paginae res singulas debent tractare. Alia Victionaria omnia verba congerunt, sed hoc facere solum iuvat cum pauca verba vel multae stipulae assunt. Nam permultae paginae in Victionario sunt stipulae; quando omnes informationes aderunt—locis, etymologiis cum citationibus, imaginibus, usu grammatico, etc. inclusis—inutilis erit omnes coniunctim habere, praesertim ubi multae linguae una orthographia utuntur, ut in verbis brevibus (vide en:a, ubi lemmata ex 45 linguis sunt!) vel nominibus locorum. Habere omnia verba idem scripta in una pagina non sustineri potest in adulto dictionario omnium linguarum.
Vide etiam hoc colloquium. —Mucius Tever 04:14, 13 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

камък със символ --82.137.113.182 17:17, 29 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Tanzania.svg

De dictionariis[+/-]

Scire volo: quo dictionario uti, ad definienda vocabula? Ego scio solum dictionaria conversoria (English-Latin & Latin-English, et cetera...), sed nullum dictionarium "Latina-Latina" scio (id est, nullum dictionarium definiens verba latina per verba latina). --Xabadiar 11:00, 15 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

ire[+/-]

Verbum ire non existent est - wie der Nichtlateiner sagt :-)--Mideal (disputatio) 13:37, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)