Talk:Lingua Ignota
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the nilzmaiz should read hilzmaiz. There are other typos consistent with rapid typing on [1] (such as stignmatum for stigmatum). dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "Hildegard" or "St. Hildegard"?
I'm not so sure she was ever made a saint... Anyone with access to a list of currently valid saints of various denominations? --Kaleissin 12:50:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
"No formal canonization has ever taken place, but her name is in the Roman Martyrology and her feast is celebrated in the Dioceses of Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Limburg, also in the Abbey of Solesmes, where a proper office is said." [2]
--Jim Henry | Talk 20:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I notice that dab has just deleted the "St." again. Any particular reason, given the evidence of her veneration given in the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited above? Formal canonization processes don't go back all that far, after all; many saints from that period and earlier were canonized informally rather than via the modern process. I would say that her name appearing in the Roman Martyrology is probably sufficient. --Jim Henry 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- well, not that I care too much about it, but the discussion of this point is probably for theHildegard of Bingen article. "St." afaik means "formally canonized", or at least should, for the purposes of objectiveness. In general: No honorifics on Wikipedia. If we have "St. Hildegard" here, people will be equally free to add "PBUH" to every mention of Muhammad, "His Holiness" to any mention of Popes or Dalai Lamas, "Guru Swamiji" to any mention of Prabhupada or Sai Baba, etc.. I don't think we want to go there... dab (ᛏ) 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Restricting the title Saint to formally canonised saints would exclude the Apostles, which would be silly. However, I'm not sure what the criterion is for calling someone a saint when the tradition of veneration predates the formal canonisation process. --PeteBleackley 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hildegard is included in the Roman Martyrology, the Catholic Church's official list of recognized saints and beati. The requirement of a process of canonization at Rome was made general only under Pope Gregory IX (1227-41). And it was only in the seventeenth century that Pope Urban VIII forbade the public cult of any person not as yet beatified or canonized by the Church, except for those who were in possession of public cult for at least 100 years.
In short, Saint Hildegard is a recognized saint as much as Saint Patrick.
Lima 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] glossary
here is another portion of the glossary I scraped off the internet, unfortunately without the original Latin/OHG translations:
- Hoil ("head"),
- Hochziz ("blindman"),
- Pasizio ("leper"),
- Ceril ("brain"),
- Ornalziriz ("curly hair"),
- Luzeia ("eye"),
- Luzerealz ("eye-socket"),
- Moniz ("mouth"),
- Gulzia ("gullet"),
- Laniscal ("breast"),
- Tirziel ("loins"),
- Scorinz ("heart"),
- Tilzia ("womb"),
- Manguiz ("excrement"),
- Creueniz ("scrotum"),
- Fragizlanz ("pudendum"),
- Minscol ("ulcer"),
- Razil ("poison"),
- Cruniz ("leg"),
- Funiz ("foot"),
- Maluizia ("whore"),
- Deiezio ("dwarf"),
- Logizkal ("giant"),
- Ornalzanzia ("hairband"),
- Naczuon ("necklace"),
- Rasinz ("veil"),
- Ausiz ("hemlock"),
- Galigiz ("cumin"),
- Pigizia ("savory"),
- Maschin ("valerian"),
- Clanzga ("tansy"),
- Nascuil ("deadly nightshade"),
- Pazia ("henbane"),
- Brumsil ("birthwort"),
- Nozia ("screech owl"),
- Ualueria ("bat"),
- Luxzia ("butterfly"),
- Zinzrinz ("winding staircase").
dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's see, Hildegard uses the letters
- ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPRSTUXZ
so these 21 letters are certainly in her alphabet. I doubt that she had the idea to use single letters for sc or ph, but I imagine that the two additional letters are Q and Y, so that Hildegard's 23 letters are equivalent to the 23 letters of the Latin alphabet (as it was from 100 BC to 1400 or so). It should be easy enough to identify them based on letter frequency, with a small corpus. The problem is that the corpus appears to be unpublished, so you'd have to get to see the Wiesbaden codex directly. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category: Undeciphered writing systems?
Since I saw an edit to add this category and a revert, I thought this should be discussed on the talk page. Clearly the language is partially deciphered, with the 1011-word glossary; likewise clearly, the language hasn't been fully understood, with the majority of the LI words in the text unknown. Was the text a representative sample, there would be perhaps 5000 words.
The real question, then, is whether there is value in listing it in that category. I tend to think that there is: a person might browse that category to find the language (perhaps not remembering the name), and a person looking for a different language might well be interested in this (overlap of interest). I can see the other side, though. Does anyone else have an opinion about this?
[edit] History
- I don't understand. The deciphering refers not to the language, but to the litterae ignotae (a redirect to this article), which are an undeciphered writing system. Or if they have been deciphered, I don't know it, and would welcome a citation. I do not think it would make sense to treat the writing system in an independent article, no encyclopedia would separate its treatment of the litterae ignotae from that of the lingua ignota. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I thought my second edit comment was clear: "We don't categorize wikieditor's ignorance. (the article does'nt say that they aren't deciphered either)". Here goes the longer version: The utmost policy here is wikipedia:Verifiability. Now, please provide an opinion of a language expert who says that the writing system was not deciphered. You write: "if they have been deciphered, I don't know it". My point is that I don't care about what you don't know (I probably don't know more than you :-). Please write what you know. Now, again: what informed reasons do you have to believe that it is not deciphered? References please, and we are done with this point.
-
- My second point is that if you add an article to a category, then the article text itself must substantiate such an inclusion. `'mikka (t) 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
