Talk:Latin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also Talk:Latin language/archive for discussion of naming and disambiguation issues.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Latin was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within classical antiquity.
Archive
Archives
*Archive (2004 - June 2007)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Latin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

If you have questions on the Latin language, please use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language instead of this talk page.

Contents

[edit] Old comments

The article is wrong — at least two British exam boards offer Latin. The SQA does as well. Either information relating to Scotland needs to be added to that paragraph, or it needs to be retitled to "England". Geoffrey Sneddon 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation?

How can there be a pronounciation of Latina? As far as I have been taught (college level), we do not know how the Romans pronounced their words other than theories. (Such as the V as a wa) And Church Latin (which we do know how to pronounce) is not traditional Latin. Can anyone defend the use of the pronounciation? Canutethegreat (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we DO know what the real pronunciation of Latin was, mostly from modern linguistics. For instance, we know that the letter "C" was pronounced always "K" because "Caesar" in German becomes "Kaiser" (and Germany was not biased during centuries by ecclesiastic pronunciation). --Gspinoza (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"Mainly from modern linguistics" you say. Extrapolation, in other words. The bottom line is that nobody today is 100% sure how Cicero or Catullus would have spoken. Weni, widi, wiki, wascally wabbit, or veni, vidi, vidi? Nobody truly knows, except from extrapolation and comparitive linguistics. Educated guesses. Peter1968 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, nobody also knows how Mayans, Etruscans, Phoenicians talked. Nodoby was there with a tape-recorder to record their speech. Nevertheless, we know how they speak from comparative linguistics. It's a science. Maybe the reconstruction isn't 100% correct, but I think it's much more than an educated guess. I mean, we've never been to Andromeda Galaxy, but we know (for sure) lots of things about it. --Gspinoza (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The best indication of how Classical Latin was pronounced is probably how Latin names were transcribed into contemporary ancient Greek works. Caius Julius Caesar becomes Γάιος Ἰουλίος Καίσαρ, so we know his praenomen began with a g sound rather than a k sound, his nomen with a y rather than a j, and his cognomen with a k rather than an s or a ch sound. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Most latin medical terms are pronounce one way in Italy and in a completely different way in UK/US. Is there a wiki policy guideline on pronounciation as several pronounciations are anglosaxon guesses spoken that way in hospitals. That is still correct in a twisted way, right? (like US english) --Squidonius (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bit of an addition here- romance languages are descended (straight?) from Latin. That's how we know, too. Lunakeet 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Unanswered query This question or request has not been resolved
Remove this tag when this is resolved.

[edit] History

The History section needs significant expansion. RedRabbit1983 14:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem paragraph

In his book Language for Everybody (1957), linguist Mario Pei showed the development of the language from what he said was the oldest sample of the language, the "Praenestine Fibula," from the 6th century BC. The inscription translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."

Can we make this about Latin instead of Mario Pei? RedRabbit1983 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello?

Does anyone visit this talk page? If so, I'd like to extend my greetings and talk about the article. RedRabbit 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not many people, apparently, but I'm listening! Djnjwd 11:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, good. I just wanted to raise certain points about the article.
The History section glosses over details and just describes broad facts (where Latin came from; what influenced it at first; and so forth). Although the section should be kept to appropriate length, the statements lose the reader's attention by their sheer randomness.
The Legacy section mostly covers material of little relevance to the general reader. Here is one example: Attempts to prohibit split infinitives, which do not exist in Latin, have been met with resistance from those who believe that occasional splitting of infinitives improves the clarity of English. The statement is, at best, peripheral to the subject of Latin, and only of any real interest in a trivia section.
The Education section has too many annoying one-sentence paragraphs, and it is boring to read.
How can we instigate some kind of improvement in the article? I've already copyedited certain sections, and I'm probably useless now. However, it is good to hear from another editor. I'm pleased to meet you. RedRabbit 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

RedRabbit, hi, I think the article suffers from having had its major content hived off into the more detailed articles (History of Latin, Classical Latin etc). The History section therefore can hard;y be much longer. However, I agree with you that the Legacy section contains a lot of apparently random stuff which should either be pruned or expanded into some sort of coherency.

Since the main content is now defaulting towards a consideration of the status/teaching of Latin country-by-country (which is interesting, and should be expanded), perhaps we ought to consider reforming the article on the following lines:

  1. Make the article an introduction to the subject with clear and ordered links to the more detailed articles
  2. One of which ought to be a new article devoted specifically to the status/teaching element
  3. Copyedit and expand the history bit, and edit and maybe prune the legacy bit
  4. Provide a decent bibliography
  5. Have a good look at all the external links
  6. Sort out all the "see also" section

leaving a straightforward orderly introduction without too much detail, as this would all be in the easy-to-follow-linked detailed articles.

Is this sort of what you had in mind yourself? Djnjwd 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would please me. RedRabbit 05:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's annoying how Institutionalized modernization and History are the same length.

[edit] Praeneste fibula

The Praenestine Fibula, one of the oldest samples of Latin, has an inscription that translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."
Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi
In classical Latin it would be rendered:
Manius me fecit Numerio
It would have appeared thus in Vulgar Latin of Italy in the 7th century A.D.
Maniu me fece per Numeriu
In modern Romance languages it would be:
Manio mi fece per Numerio (Italian)
Manio me hizo para Numerio (Spanish)
Manios me fit pour Numère (French)

I removed this text from the article. My understanding is that the consensus that the Praeneste fibula is a nineteenth century hoax, and not an authentic artifact of early Latin, is fairly well accepted at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we replace it with an authentic text? RedRabbit 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The next closest text in time is the much more difficult Duenos inscription. But it isn't anywhere near as simple, and there is no single agreed on translation. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vocative

  1. Vocative: used when the noun is used in a direct address (usually of a person, but not always, as in O Tempora! O Mores!).

Surely these are not vocatives, and not direct address, but exclamations, and are accusative, although the endings don't make this obvious. Cicero was not addressing the times and the customs of the Romans (or of Catiline) but apostrophizing them. There is a similar construction in Virgil's 'O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, agricolas' (Georgics II 458-9), and here the ending makes it obvious that the accusative is used.Impert 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Another example: 'me miseram' (Aeneid). Reference Latin, Gavin Betts, Hodder & Stoughton Teach Yourself Books,1986 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impert (talk • contribs) 22:30, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Agree. There was probably some confusion over the O, which often comes before the vocative or the accusative. RedRabbit 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, obviously accusative. --BiT 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBA Belgium

Hi, I live in Belgium and I can tell you there is still latin education in secundary schools. I read our minister of education is planning to change the system by 2011.(De Morgen 01/09/2007 that is a newspaper :p)

Thomas271104 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "If anyone wants tho go through and copy-edit the clunky wording, be my several-hour-long guest."

I did it. Leave a comment on my talk page to tell me what you think. David G Brault 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I liked the previous version more, even though that clearly needed work. RedRabbit 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I redid the introduction. RedRabbit 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a big improvement on what was there before, esp. in the introduction; two points:

  • Shouldn't the "orthography" section be close to or a subsection of "grammar"
  • The "legacy" section should then be a more natural part of the "history"

at the moment, they are rather uneasily yoked together. Djnjwd 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article status being reassessed

Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. If you would like to see this article brought back up to GA standards, please join the discussion at good article reassessment --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been delisted. The discussion is linked from the article history. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two words for black/white

Over in this article, a lot is made of Hungarian having two basic words for red, where one isn't a variant of the other. Would Latin with ater and niger for black and albus and candidus for white be in the same boat? If so, do you think something could be added to the article to illustrate this? Peter1968 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the two languages are alike in this respect; but no, I don't think it is worthy of comment. RedRabbit 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It could be relevant on a related article though. I'll have a search Delvin Kelvin (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Anyone know what petarum means? I just can't find out for the life of me what the meaning of this word is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I worked it out. It seems to mean peat or peatland. The authors of Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources appear to have missed it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Could it be a contract form for "poetarum" (of the poets)? --Gspinoza (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Uses

I'd like to remove the following from the Modern Uses section:

Spells in the Harry Potter series are sometimes made from Latin words. For example, accio, the Summoning Charm, is Latin for "I summon".

While an interesting fact to some, it seems to be more appropriate for a "trivia" section or a "uses in popular culture" section rather then as an example of a modern use of Latin. Dpes anyone have any objections? --Xaraphim (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Popular culture trivia cruft like this gives me the vapors. Mlouns (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed x2. While it doesn't quite give me the vapors, there is enough of this sort of trivia on Wikipedia now (Roadrunner vs Coyote, pseudo-Latin binomial nomenclature anyone? Peter1968 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the comment. If someone has a desire to add it again, may I suggest putting it in the Harry Potter article or discuss the idea of having a trivia section in the article on this talk page. --Xaraphim (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
By all means, mention it in the Harry Potter article. But I do hope that this article can remain without a blinkin' blankin' Trivia section. Mlouns (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Harry Potter reference that was re-added today per the previous discussion here. However, would it not be noteable to mention in general the magic spells in television today are almost always said in Latin? Maybe this can be mentioned and if needed, then give a couple of examples of tv shows/films such as Harry Potter. I do think that is noteable for modern usage since it's such a wide spread thing. Kman543210 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Q

Why does this article get vandalized so much? Balonkey (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My theory is that Latin, taken in schools, is, while fulfilling sometimes when you're in the mood for it, is a source of terrible frustration at other times. David G Brault (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a terrible theory. No offense, i'm not flaming you or anything. I just feel that that is not why this article is so often vandalized. I feel that is due to its likeliness to pop-up on any search for a Latin information article. This leads to an abundance of yahoos who think the know what they aretalkinga bout typing random junk that is not useful.--HermXIV (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval

Is anyone besides me confused by the multitude of dialects as well as corruption of medieval, or church, Latin? --HermXIV (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

it states that latin was spoken by the romans during the roman republic and roman empire what about during the roman kingdom did they not speak latin than?

Also i see italian is the closest to latin, funny i always thought listening to latin spoken than here any of the romance languages spoken i always though french was the closest thing.--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the non italicized latin text in the Nouns section, and put them all "definition" "translation" for ease of understanding. The rest of it needs going over by a dedicated editor for awhile to get it all right or at least consistent though. 98.209.100.83 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case ending example

I've commented this part out as these examples are given far more exhaustive treatment in the Latin declension article. Peter1968 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, since nobody objected to me commenting it out. Peter1968 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need article?

Why does French Wikipedia have the article fr:Roman (langue), yet there's only one interwiki, to the Italian WP? Do we need an article on this? Badagnani (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How is this extinct if people still speak it?

Is it because it's a different dialect (sort of...) now?

Lunakeet 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)