Victionarium:Taberna/Tabularium/2006

Pagina experimentalis +/-

Does such a page exist here? --Roland2 18:04, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victionarium:Harenarium. —Myces Tiberinus 21:57, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Word frequencies +/-

Are there such lists in the Victionarium? I have found a list of the 1000 most frequent German words. See my user page ([1]). --Roland2 07:05, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victionarium:Dictiones in Project Gutenberg per frequentiam is all we have so far, I think. —Myces Tiberinus 22:59, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of nom. - gen. - dat. - acc. +/-

In Zähre we have the cases in an order which I learnt in school: nom. - gen. - dat. - acc. The order in Mauerraute is very strange to me: nom. - acc. - gen. - dat. The cases have alternate names: "1. Fall", "2. Fall", "3. Fall", "4. Fall" which correspond to nom. - gen. - dat. - acc. Is the order in Mauerraute an error or are there reasons? --Roland2 20:43, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cases should be given in the order normal to their language. I am not a native German speaker, so the table I put in Formula:de-declinatio-4f (which appears in Mauerraute) is in the wrong, I suppose, and probably needs to be edited. —Myces Tiberinus 22:57, 6 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, now that I look into it, the Latin cases were numbered as well—and apparently in the same way as the German: casus primus (nominative), casus secundus (genitive), casus tertius (dative), casus quartus (accusative), casus quintus (vocative), casus sextus (ablative). The first five seem to be inherited from Greek, with Latin's ablative tacked onto the end. —Myces Tiberinus 00:48, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it ... that's the order I know from school. :-) See http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Declinatio_Prima --Roland2 12:32, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, but it is a surprise to me, as my Latin textbooks do not present them in this order! The grammar at Perseus is similar to this, but puts the vocative sixth; my dead-trees grammar gives them in the order I have made the declension tables in (presumably as it has the advantage of putting similar-appearing forms together). In User:Mycēs/la-declinatio, though, which I am currently working on, I have fixed it to the normal order. Incidentally I was able to find some references to the locative as the seventh case. (And also a few others to seventh and eighth cases being conjectures of imaginative grammarians...) —Myces Tiberinus 14:01, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In [2] I provided a link to http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hispanoteca/Lexikon%20der%20Linguistik/k/KASUS%20%20%20Caso.htm and guessed it seems that the order I have in mind is just used when the focus is on Latin. If someone is talking more general, other orderings are used --Roland2 14:12, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German: nom., gen., dat., acc. - 1. Fall, 2. Fall, 3. Fall, 4. Fall. Old Grammaticans also added abl. and voc. to German declension, but that's not present anymore. (Though for dated declension of Latin words included in German one maybe has to add them.)
Latin: There are two way of ordering the Latin casûs: nom., gen., dat., acc., abl., voc OR nom., gen., dat., acc., voc., abl.; i.e. voc. or abl. either as 5th or 6th casus. nom., voc., acc., gen., dat. abl. is totally unusual, but a) there's no discussion about what's 5th and what's 6th case (voc. or abl.) and b) it's ordered by similarity (voc. is usually like or similar to nom., in Latin). But not sure if that's a good decision as it's irritating as it's unusual.

-80.133.108.12 18:28, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unicodigum simbolaque extranea? +/-

Cur habet wictionarium latinum simbolum √ et ceteram? (Et vobis rogo quod mihi perdonetis meam latinam malam) –72.66.71.216 17:45, 27 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vide Auxilium:Abbreviationes#Symboli. —Myces Tiberinus 22:26, 27 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

metior +/-

Habemusne formulam pro verbis sicut "metior". Solum "eloquor" inveni, quod non valet ad "metior" introducendum propter ii-effectus.

Etiam patior, loquor, morior, mercor, metor non inveni. Alex1011 20:34, 19 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non, caremus Formula:coniugatio-4-dep, Formula:coniugatio-3io-dep, Formula:coniugatio-2-dep, etc. Potes eas facere. —Myces Tiberinus 22:28, 19 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

formula pro metior +/-

Formulas Formula:XXX et Formula:YYY feci pro metior, sed nescio quo nomine formulae nominandae sunt:

Radix praesens loqu-
Praesens indicativum
dep.	sing.	plur.
I.	loquor	loquimur
II.	loqueris	loquiminī
III.	loquitur	loquuntur
Imperativus
dep.	loquere	loquiminī
Imperativus futurus
II.	loquitor	—
III.	loquitor	loquuntor
Praesens subiunctivum
dep.	sing.	plur.
I.	loquar	loquāmur
II.	loquāris	loquāminī
III.	loquātur	loquantur
Imperfectum indicativum
dep.	sing.	plur.
I.	loquēbar	loquēbāmur
II.	loquēbāris	loquēbāminī
III.	loquēbātur	loquēbantur
Imperfectum subiunctivum
dep.	sing.	plur.
I.	loquerer	loquerēmur
II.	loquerēris	loquerēminī
III.	loquerētur	loquerentur
Futurum indicativum
dep.	sing.	plur.
I.	loquar	loquēmur
II.	loquēris (-re)	loquēminī
III.	loquētur	loquentur

Infinitivi
	act.	dep.
praes.	—	loquī
perf.	—	locutus (-a, -um) esse

Participia
praes.	loquens, -entis
perf.	locutus, -a, -um
fut.	locutūrus, -a, -um

Gerundia et supina
subst.	loquendum, -ī
adiect.	loquendus, -a, -um
supina	locutum, locutū

Alex1011 11:48, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conventum prospere aperitur est +/-

Haec sententia corrigenda est. --Alex1011 20:28, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:delenda +/-

Is there a "delete"-template in Victionarium? Eg. Wikcionario‎ should be deleted, I guess, but what can I do about it? --81.197.12.28 16:30, 3 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no delete template yet. It's been low-traffic enough that we pretty much see everything at least within a day of it coming in. It may come to that sometime, tho, and if you'd like to make Formula:delenda (or whatever) feel free. —Myces Tiberinus 00:21, 4 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links +/-

What can be done with all of the red links in any conjugation or declension template? Should they all redirect back to the original, or should they all link to separate articles?

For example:

          Habemus, 1st person plural of habeo.  (This would be in Lingua Latina, of course)

If so, I can help do that.

--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 01:01, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]