Jump to content

Talk:Latin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex '05 (talk | contribs) at 07:44, 4 January 2005 (→Closest language...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Does Ecclesiastical Latin fit in anywhere?

Why not add a new heading/list ? Classical Latin, Vulgar Latin, Neo (New) Latin, Ecclesiastical(Church) Latin, Latin as Pronounced in England, France, Itallian, etc.. Jondel

v

Some schools, (versions depending on the country, age of the language etc. ) dispute that 'v' is should not be in Latin but should be replaced with 'u'. Some in some books/schools, the pronounciation of 'v' is w. I read that v was a latter addition. Also it is said that Church Latin is based on Itallian. e.g. ng -> ny, c-> ch. etc.. Is there a final, authorative reference Comments, anyone ? Jondel

  • Yes, just read a book on the history of the Romance languages and you'll get details on what Latin was like as a real language. As for "v", there is no such letter in Latin — it was invented in the Middle Ages. Julius Caesar said and wrote "ueni, uidi, uici." —Chameleon 22:21, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, "u" is the newcomer; the Romans wrote in ALL CAPS and their letter form was always V; in uppercase U is the innovation. "u" was the shape it took in Carolignian miniscule, and "v" was added to the repertoire of letter shapes once a difference between the two began to be drawn. The way English was routinely printed in the first third of the seventeenth century, the letter "v" stood at the beginning of a word for u or v, and the letter "u" elsewhere for either letter as well. There may be more information at Latin alphabet, V, or U. Smerdis of Tlön 00:25, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • In churches in Madrid I would see IVAN (yes Madrid not Russia). I knew then that this is how John (English), Juan(Spanish), and IVAN (Russian )were derived and how I and V changed. Thanks on the above info. Will look into phonemes.Jondel
  • Just to clarify, neither u nor v is the newcomer; they were originally two graphical variants of the same letter; the same was true for i and j. For a while in English, v was just the word-initial form of the letter, while u was medial or terminal; this is analogous to modern Greek's preservation of two miniscule sigma forms (initial/medial and terminal), or the old distinction between s forms (the f-shaped long form and the short form we still use). Neither veni nor ueni is more correct; however, strict usage would, I suppose, never write vacuum—it would be either vacvvm or uacuum, since classical Latin did not distinguish v-as-consonant from u-as-vowel. —Tkinias 10:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Latin is merely shorthand for Italian

Notice how Latin takes up about half the space of any other romance language? Also Portuguese, Spanish, French, Italian and the others are all much more like each other than they are to Latin, so why should they have come from Latin?

it just don't add up!

What are you blathering on about, anonymous? —Chameleon 13:25, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
because there was two latin languages. The Latin without name (the people's), evolved and was renamed as the language of each descendant latin country. That happened in Portugal. King Dinis of Portugal, especifically, said that the vulgar ( that means people) language will be renamed Portuguese. It was the language of the Roman settlers and soldiers, but it was undervaluated, thus without name. Possibly similar to the creoles in the past (Vulgar Latin is not a creole, but the history of it is the same - lack of prestige and without name, and a very different grammar). Latin is not so different from today's Romance languages it has many similarities, especially in lexicon, and that's why many confuse it to be the past of today's latin Languages. (they are all latin because they came from the surrounding region of Rome.)-Pedro 12:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
You're just saying in an incoherent way what everyone already knows. Chameleon 22:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Nope... people don't know that. Chameleon, translate the latin of Ophiussa, if you know good Classical latin. Thx. -Pedro 18:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you,Pedro, you expressed in a very understandable way (for me at least) something which I hadn't previously understood explicitly. Things that 'everyone

knows' sometimes need to be restated, in order for everybody to know them. Personally it was of some help. I don't know much about Latin more than the meaning of a few hundred words, that's why I'm reading the 'discuss page' first. Often the discussion has much more information than the article itself. I got some benefit from your paragraph. ThanksPedant 19:13, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Latin is not italian. It has nothing to do with Italy. Italy was the first area that the Romans conquered. Latin is the Language of Latium. (Area of Rome).Pedro 12:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
On this subject, I actually think it's pretty clear that Sardinian, not Italian, is the closest living language to Latin. (Romanian is also eerily similar at times, but I'm sure it doesn't beat out Sardinian.) QuartierLatin1968 04:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sardinian is not a commonly spoken language (as the article that says the closest living common language to Latin is Italian). Romanian definately isn't the closest to Latin, because of its heavy Slavic influence. Andros 1337 02:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latin Scholar Needed!

See: Talk:Greek numerical prefixes Leonard G. 04:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Greek to the ancient Romans?

does anyone know if it is true that most ancient Romans actually spoke Greek more often than Latin? mnemonic 08:45, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

I suspect that the answer depends upon your definition of "ancient Roman" and the timing. Probably more subjects of the Roman empire spoke Greek than Latin because the eastern parts of the empire were the most populous and had long been Hellenized. A large percentage of the upper class Romans, especially those with intellectual pretensions, would also speak Greek.
However, the majority of the Roman citizens-in-the-street probably only spoke Latin. GreatWhiteNortherner 09:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The élite preferred Greek. Greek was also spoken by the numerous foreign slaves, by merchants, and by others who might need it. Plus of course, Greeks, when they were in the Empire. Otherwise, the language used was Latin, in either vulgar or classical form. — Chameleon My page/My talk 09:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

God knows if anyone is going to read this comment five months after the comment by Chameleon, but I would dispute that the elite actually 'preferred' Greek. I think a more nuanced view would be to claim that the elite 'expected' members (members being my own loose term, to describe those who passed in and out of the upper echelons of any major urban social centres in the Empire) to be fluent and indeed, if possible, eloquent, in Greek -- typically Attic dialect. HOWEVER, the elite of the late Republican and early Imperial period (Gold/Silver Age we're talking about here) were lovers of their own native tongue, as much as they complained about its limitations (although, perhaps the most beautiful and brilliant of the Romans, cicero, sought to dispell this mythos -- I tend to agree with him. Read the Disputations in forma vera and try to disagree). Furthermore, they were masters of their own native tongue -- very little of pure Greek written by "Romans" (even Greek Romans) survives today -- and survival is highly correlated with acclaim within the first few centuries of a text being issued forth. But Latin is, relatively speaking, plentiful. In short, I think it is best to fix in one's head the idea that the elite PREFERRED that they and those around them knew Greek, were able to use it effectively in writing, were able to debate in it, etc. But this is different from saying that they outright PREFERRED Greek. The Romans, like any great people, were a proud people across the whole ranks of their societies. For as much as they sometimes poo-pooed Latin (yes, I did just say poo poo) they preferred their mother tongue, and poured their brillance into it. User:144.82.208.113

Extinct, Yet Spoken

Hi. I find it somewhat confusing that the offical language of Vatican City is considered extinct. I understand that there is the notion of a living language as one that is passed down from parents to children, but surely the fact that tens of thousands (or more) of ecclesiasticals and scholars around the world speak some form of Latin as a second language should be recorded in the article's table-listing. In other language articles, I am left with the impression that the Total speakers field includes those who speak it as a second language. func(talk) 17:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


translation

  • can anyone translate this - In umbra, igitur, pugnabimus? --Larsie 18:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • "Therefore we will fight in the shadows." I think that is from an account of the Battle of Thermopylae, or some battle from the Persian Wars, where the Persians have so many arrows that they boast they will block out the sun. This is the answer the Spartans give. Adam Bishop 19:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • what meaning does the 'suffix' abimus convey? thanks.Pedant 19:32, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
        • It's the first person plural future indicative active ending. HTH —No-One Jones (m) 19:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • first person plural future, meaning we will (fight- pugnabimus)--Jondel 06:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latin scholar needed for another article

Over at Hairshirt#History is something I wrote. I took the Latin from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but the translation doesn't make sense. Can someone knowledgeable of Latin help here? Here, I'll repeat the paragraph:

The Latin word is cilicium, and the reputed first Scriptural use of the word hairshirt in the Latin scriptures is in the Vulgate of Psalm 34:13, "Ego autem, cum mihi molesti essent, induebar cilicio." ("Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile" in the King James Bible — this is from The Catholic Encyclopedia referenced below). This is translated as hair-cloth in the Douay Bible, and as sackcloth in the Anglican Authorized Version and the Book of Common Prayer.

dino 02:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Vulgate followed the Septuagint rather than the Tanakh and misnumbers a bunch of Psalms, and as a result many of the numbers differ from the KJV through large passages of the book by one. What you want is Psalm 35:13: "But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth." Smerdis of Tlön 04:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Closest language...

"The closest living common language to Latin is Italian." Is this correct? I also read that the closest language is Romanian, but i doubt this.

Well Romanian is the only romance language to still have a case system. That's a pretty major similarity - of course the case system is different but not as different as Italian which has no cases at all.
I'm not sure but I think I've also heard either Latvian or Lithuanian mentioned as being very similar to Latin - but then again they're not even romance languages... — Hippietrail 11:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It all depends on what your measure of "close" is, really. Romanian still has cases, but it has accreted Slavic grammatical features. Italian also is close, retaining vowels lost in much of Western Romance, and not voicing intervocalic stops. Sardinian I understand is particularly conservative [though its article is seriously in need of cleanup...]. —Muke Tever 12:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Firstly I goofed regarding the Baltics - they're supposed to be the closest to Proto Indo European! From what I've read Romanian linguists will not agree with what you say about Slavic features though that is the common belief in the west. Romanian does have non-romance, non-slavic features such as suffixed articles though, and it does have some slavic vocabulary. That all aside, I think you're quite right about Sardinian - I would like to know more about that language. — Hippietrail 14:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of the Romance languages, Romanian is in truth the closest to Latin, because of its case-systems, its three gender nouns (as in Latin, lost in other Romance languages), and even its vocabulary. For instance, Romanian is the only Romance language to preserve classical Latin Caput (the head in the anatomical sense) as Cap ( the head in the anatomical sense). In other Romance languages, Vulgar Latin Testa replaced 'caput'. Here are two sentences in Romanian, taken from a newspaper: " In Irlanda, viaţa este buna. Se castiga ceva mai mult decat la vecinii din Anglia sau Europa, chiar daca preţurile sunt cu puţin sarite faţa de celealte ţari din Uniunea Europeana, din care Irlanda face parte." ---There are no Slavic words in these sentences, and that is many times the case. About 75% of Romanian words are Latin (almost all basic words), and Slavic words are present indeed, just as many Germanic words are present in French and many Arabic words in Spanish. Romanian may have a number of Slavic words, but in no way is it close to the Slavic or Baltic languages, and they are mutually incomprehensible to each other, very incomprehensible to each other in fact. Romanian is the closest living language to Latin. (Decius)

See [ http://www.unrv.com/culture/latin-language.php, a non-Romanian site devoted to the ancient Roman Empire, where it is said that Romanian is the closest living language to Latin, and this is said in all unpartisan linguistic references. (Decius)

As for "Slavic grammatical" features, that is not quite the case: the article at the end of words (head: cap>capul; wolf: lup>lupul) is not found in any Slavic language (though it is found in North Germanic languages, but that is a coincidence). Other features that appear "slavic" are in fact Balkan linguistic features, found in Romanian, Greek, Albanian, and only in SOUTH Slavic languages like bulgarian, and here Romanian may have influenced Bulgarian, not vice versa. The Slavic influence extends mostly to loanwords.(Decius)

I notice that when it comes to Romanian lots of people like to open their mouths and make statements about it (based on preconceptions) even though they know nothing about the language. Because of its geographical position (bordering on Ukraine) and recent past (under Soviet influence, yet remember that Ceaucescu's regime was quite independent from Moscow, and many stand-offs resulted), many people assume many things. Other confusions arise from a whole other angle: because gypsies in recent decades have begun to refer to themselves officially as "rom" (instead of gypsies or tsigan), some people are under the impression that Romanians are somehow linked to gypsies: nope. Gypsies migrated from India sometime during the 13th-14th centuries into the Balkans, and before they entered the Eastern Roman empire (the Byzantine empire, as we call it now, though the Byzantines themselves called it the Roman empire) the gypsies were known as "dom", as they are still known in the middleast and in India. When they entered the eastern Roman empire, they began to call themselves "rom", for obvious reasons. The Romanians, on the other hand, who are descended in part from the Roman colonists (and in part from Dacians, etc.), were of course already long established in Europe and were already known as Romanians (Romani, etc.) before the gypsies ever heard of Europe. So now we have two totally different groups, Romanians and "rom", living adjacent to each other, not always peacefully. Gypsies are found in large numbers in Hungary, Spain, Romania, Portugal, et cetera. Most Romanians view gypsies in a very unfavorable manner, and when Romanians want to make fun of someone they say "you are behaving like a gypsy (tsigan)". Many Romanians despise gyspies, and this fact came to the surface during World War II, when the fascist Romanian Iron Guard rounded up Gypsies and either deported them or murdered them in large numbers (the gypsy population was greatly reduced, but has since climbed again). So let's keep that in mind. As for Russia, many Romanians harbor ill-sentiments towards Russia (which invaded Romania with tanks after WWII), and the country has moved away from the Russian circle, and is looking towards the west. (Decius) 02:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Latin language

Why is this article at Latin instead of at Latin language like all the other language articles? It seems a bit inconsistent... —Tkinias 03:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

there is a phrase and the english translation is "of liking there is no dispute" i think in latin it is something to the efeect of "di gust tubus non is pertanto" i don't know though Brianboru

Sorry, Mr. Boru, you lost me there...  :/ —Tkinias 16:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think he's looking for de gustibus non est disputandum - i.e. "there's no point arguing about tastes." -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ahhhh... Right. OK, I'm less interested de gustibus and more interested de integritate. I would consider the question of "X" or "X language" to be a matter of gustus but consistency to be a matter of integritas. —Tkinias 20:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We had this quarrel some time ago concerning various programming languages, as many were unaware that convention is to only disambiguate where necessary. A language whose name is adjectival, such as Spanish, needs the "language" qualifier in its article title to distinguish it from, say, Spanish cuisine. Languages with their own names, such as Ladino or Quechua, or for that matter this one, have no such requirement and should be titled accordingly. A. D. Hair 02:28, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
The existance of Latin (disambiguation) suggests that this could stand disambiguation... —Tkinias 03:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But because none of these uses refers to the same concept, the term "Latin language" would be a fallacious similitude. Even if Latin were the language spoken by Latin Americans, none of the alternate uses trumps what is far and away the principal use of the term (cf. London). A. D. Hair 04:17, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
A "fallacious similitude"? *scratches head* I haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at, to be quite honest. —Tkinias 10:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I should say "the title," sorry. A. D. Hair 10:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what your argument is. Latin language is fallaciously similar to what? Latin, in the sense of Latin America or the old French concept of the Latin races, refers to a cultural area which traces its ancestry to Rome. Latin, in the sense of the Latin Church, refers to the Patriarchate of Rome. Latin, in the sense of the Latin alphabet, refers to the writing system developed in Rome. These are all connected, just as much as sauerkraut and Hochdeutsch are connected. Latin, as an unqualified noun or adjective, is just as ambiguous as German, even if some of the uses are less familiar to contemporary Brits or USians. —Tkinias 11:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These are related, but not identical, concepts. The German language is the language of Germany—German is being used as adjectivally, just as it is with German music. Latin music, however, has nothing whatever to do with the pre-Roman inhabitants of Latium, save the millennia-old cultural and linguistic ties common to all of Europe. Thus it is hardly accurate to describe a "Latin language" (Latin is not an adjective except as derived from the language, not the people) in the same way, and neither do we write of an "Esperanto language" or a "Lepontic language." (We do, analogously, have "Esperanto speakers," the adjective being derived from the language itself.)
Believe it or not, the article's been moved before. Every time this is patiently explained, and every time it's moved back. A. D. Hair 11:47, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
(Latin is not an adjective except as derived from the language, not the people) — Somewhere, an etymologist is crying.
Linking modern Latin music to pre-Roman Latins is comparable to linking modern German music to the Germanic tribes of the first millennium. The word "German" has remained since then, and is now being used for inhabitants of Germany, just as "Latin (adjective)" has remained since then and is now being used for people of Iberian descent. You're right in that Esperanto doesn't have an ethnos, so "Esperanto language" is redundant, however there was a Lepontic people, the Lepontii of which indeed the proper ethnonym is "Lepontic".
[Anyway, being as 1) all the ancillary uses of "Latin" are adjectival (except "inhabitant of Latium" which doesn't even have an article yet), and 2) page titles are supposed to be nouns, I don't have any trouble with this page being at Latin.] —Muke Tever 15:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct on all counts. Point 1 was actually the argument I started off with, you'll find above, before I started trying to be an ass. The "except as derived ..." statement was rather stupid of me, and in my defense I can only say that it was very late and I was very drunk. Swap "derived from" with "refers to" and qualify it with "common use," and then you'll have the gist of the point I was making. My apologies to the grief-stricken etymologist. A. D. Hair 00:43, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think Tkinias has this one. Consistency is a strong (but not unbeatable) argument. More importantly, Austin Hair’s arguments fall apart. There is a disambiguation page for ‘Latin’. ‘Latin’ is an adjective. In fact, it has the form of an English adjective, not a Latin word at all, and when used to describe the language is actually a substantive, with the word ‘language’ being understood. And just because the modern adjective does not refer back to LATIVM directly does not make it spurious (or a “fallacious similitude”, thank you kindly); you could say the same thing about ‘Romance’ — what does that have to do with Rome? And if ‘Latin’ as a noun is the most common use, it is not “far and away the principal use”. I am sure we all appreciate the condescending patience in your explanation, AD. But do you have any convincing arguments that you can patiently offer?

And why has the talk page not been moved with the article?
— Ford 12:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I would indeed protest calling Spanish a "Roman language," the proper analogy, but as it is we term it a Romance language, which is quite another thing. Nobody is lobbying for deletion of Latin (disambiguation), but you're free to disagree with my justifications just the same. A. D. Hair 13:01, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that A. D. Hair's main point of pedantry is that he believes the word "Latin" to be non-adjectival. Perhaps he is not aware that many English words have both nominal and adjectival uses. Or perhaps he has not heard that English nouns may be used attributively. Or maybe the fact that the word "Latin" is used as to qualify other nouns, whether as adjective or attributive noun is new to him. Then again he may not have noticed his own use of "Latin" this way as he typed "Latin American" above. Of course this is the same A. D. Hair whose pedantry does seem to permit the use of the noun "article" as an adjective in his term "article title". I'm also confused by his illustration of the adjectival quality of the word "Spanish" in his turn of speech "such as Spanish" above.

It could be that I'm completely off-track on what bothers him about standardising this article's title. I wonder if the article will find itself patiently and passively moved back once more? — Hippietrail 13:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you've had a few too many of those "special" brownies. Your confusion, no doubt, stems from the fact that you're reading into my comments an argument I'm not making. Try again. A. D. Hair 00:43, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hair, if you would be so kind as to stop being insulting and antagonistic and discuss this like an adult, we would be most appreciative. There is no need for this. There are three editors giving arguments why the move would be appropriate, and you are not giving any clear counterargument, just being arrogant and abusive. —Tkinias 02:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hippie is neither advocating the move nor addressing any point I've made to date. If you'd like to do so, please speak of specifics. A. D. Hair 06:30, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
It's true I'm neither advocating "Latin" nor "Latin language" but I do think consistency would be beneficial. We can consistently make the "Titles as nouns, only disambiguate when necessary" rule the more important, or we can make the "All language articles have the word 'language' in their title" rule the more important. If the former rule comes out on top then articles such as "Esperanto language" should all be moved on the same basis. — Hippietrail 11:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RM discussion

Latin → Latin language

  • Most languages are under "X language", except when the language name is not also an ethnonym. "Latin" (as the existance of Latin (disambiguation) illustrates) is not unambiguous, and can refer as a noun to a member of the ancient Latin people, to a Roman Catholic or Protestant (in Orthodox Christian usage), to a member of the "Latin race" (i.e., Iberian/French/Italian, in 19th century parlance), etc. The talk page is getting nowhere, so I think this needs input from the broader community. —Tkinias 22:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. According to the disambiguation policy, primary meaning should not be disambiguated. Primary meaning of Latin is the language. -- Naive cynic 22:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • The primary meaning of "French" as a noun is French language, much as the primary meaning of "Spanish" as a noun is Spanish language, yet those are at "X lanaguage". Indeed, I am aware of no other uses of "French" or "Spanish" as nouns. On the other hand, "Latin" is used as a noun to refer to people in addition to the language. —Tkinias 02:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I would have thought that "the French" was more likely to refer to the people of France rather than the French language (ditto "the Spanish", the people of Spain, Spanish language), no? -- ALoan (Talk) 03:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I should have clarified that I was referring to singular nouns. There is no other meaning I can think of for "French" or "Spanish" as singular nouns. OTOH, "the French" or "the Spanish" is the rather archaic but formally correct way to refer to the languages (as in the ossified expression "translated from the French by..."); my 100-year-old Latin grammar always refers to the language as "the Latin". The fact remains that these are no more ambiguous than "Latin", which as a singular noun refers both to a person and to the language. —Tkinias 03:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose as Naive cynic. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Consistency is important for users and editors alike; the argument about disambiguation, as Tkinias says, could be applied to most language names and yet is not, when ‘Latin’ is actually in greater need of disambiguation. We can speak of “the French” and “the Latins”; but while we can speak of “a Latin”, we cannot speak of “a French”.
      — Ford 02:47, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
      • Consistency is a nice thing, but we don't have it anyway - there are several other languages whose articles are not under the "X language". -- Naive cynic 11:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Just because we are not yet consistent does not mean we cannot move in that direction.
          — Ford 12:14, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
          • It depends on whether we want to move all language articles to "X language". -- Naive cynic 12:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Seems rather redundant. "Latin" is incredibly more likely to be referring to the language than anything else. SECProto 04:38, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. I've discovered I don't like the entire "X language" convention. The argument about "primary meaning" holds for basically all languages — my naïve expectation is that a person coming to an encyclopedia and typing "french" in the "go" box is looking for French language, not French people. As for what articles link to, less than 80 pages link to French people (Special:Whatlinkshere/French people) while more pages link to French language than the software will display (Special:Whatlinkshere/French language). So why shouldnt it be at French? If we're going to apply mysterious article naming logic, we could at least be consistent about it. (And if not liking that drives us on to change our standard for the better, then so be it.) BTW, there are two disambiguation pages for Latin: Latin (disambiguation) and Latin (adjective)) —Muke Tever 07:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose primary meaning is the language and I think a special case should be made for something as widely used as the Latin language anyway. It is probably spoken by more people than any other tongue, whether they know it or not. adamsan 12:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose primary meaning is the language. older≠wiser 12:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - primary meaning is the language. And if Muke Tever is correct (if the language links dominate that much), we should seriously consider moving all languages in the opposite direction. Rd232 18:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I would support moving all languages this way. Currently, one cannot be sure (without checking) where a link like French, German, or Latin will wind up, so I always disambiguate—[[France|French]] or [[French language|French]]. As I mentioned on my original post on Talk:Latin, I frankly care not whether it's at Latin or Latin language, so long as all languages are treated consistently, and I can predict when I'm writing an article where the link will end up. (I can't imagine why treating languages consistently gets so much opposition...) —Tkinias 18:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If I type "Latin" in the Go box, I expect to read about the Latin language. However, in the case of French language, etc., I would oppose moving them to French; the current disambiguation pages there are excellent, and are quite practical when someone writes something like "is a French poet," rather than the more standard "is a [[France|French]] poet." The difference is that it is extremely rare for English speakers to refer to Latin culture, Latin cuisine, etc.; and if one talks about Latin literature, then one is talking about literature written in Latin. I think that the status quo is quite acceptable. --LostLeviathan 22:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, LostLeviathan. Usually when we refer to Latin literature we call it by what it has been known as for centuries...Classics.—ExplorerCDT 15:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure where you live, but in my part of the States there is a lot of Latin culture. It is more PC today to use the untranslated Latina/-o, but the traditional English term is Latin—hence Latin America. Indeed, one is far more likely to be referring to Hispanics than anything pertaining to ancient Rome or the Latin language when one says Latin around here. —Tkinias 09:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. If I type "Latin" in the Go Box, I'd rather expect to read about the music genre rather than the language of Juvenal, Cato, and Livy which is generally more interesting. Latin should be a disambiguation page, leading to Latin language, Latin (music), perhaps something referring to the Latins both the ancient tribe that lived near Etruria and became the progenitors of the Kingdom of Rome, before the Republic, and the people that today are grouped as Latin—hispanics, spanish, portuguese, &c. We really need a disambiguation at this page. As for the language page, Latin language gets my support. Consistency demands it—above personal preferences.—ExplorerCDT 06:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Out of curiosity, what do you expect to read about when you type in the Go box, say, "Acid", "Club", "Dance", "Gospel", "Jungle", "Metal", or "Soul"? -- Naive cynic 00:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Nice of you to read and comment on only one line without reading what I mentioned in the rest of the paragraph. Obviously you are blind because any fool would have noticed that one line was meant to be tete-a-tete rhetoric directed towards LostLeviathan concerning his subjective statement that after having typed Latin into the Go box he expected to be led to the language article. I guess some people either don't read, or—because of some deficiency in comprehension—need more-than-obvious rhetorical flourishes explained to them. —ExplorerCDT 15:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Consistency, apparently, is not a priority... —Tkinias 09:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. If I type Latin, I expect Latin. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a heavily linked-to article; moving will occasion a major fuss. "Latin" is originally and ordinarily the name of a language. Most other uses are abbreviations for Latin American, and this probably should be spelled out the first time it's used in that context in any case. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ordinarily maybe, but originally no: Latin is originally an ethnonym, regularly formed (Latium : Latin  :: Rome : Roman). Not its fault that the region ended up severely outclassed by its capital. ;) (—Muke Tever 02:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Guettarda 19:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Suppport. While the language is the primary meaning, "X_language" is the standard article naming for language articles. If we are to leave this, we should move all "X_language" articles to "X", and deal with the mess that creates. - UtherSRG 12:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
If that's the best thing in the long run (is it?) then maybe we should bite the bullet. (And it needn't be done overnight.) Rd232 01:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:06, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This discussion was already held a few years ago. The language is the primary use of Latin, thus according to Wikipedia disambiguation policy, the current situation should stand. RedWolf 08:01, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose, once again. I suppose I should now expect a vote every few months for all eternity, here and for a dozen similarly named pages. A. D. Hair (t&m) 14:05, dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Does anyone have any evidence that the prohibition on the split infinitive was an attempt to make English resemble Latin? I took out "contrived" because I really doubt that it was contrived, but I also doubt that the split infinitive should even be mentioned in this article. The prohibition on ending sentences with prepositions might be a better choice--if someone will check what John Dryden said about it. —JerryFriedman 20:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin&oldid=9093911"