Talk:List of Latin abbreviations

Formatting & stet
I just made some minor edits, but I think this page needs uniform formatting. Also, should the description of "stet" be moved to "sic"? I am pretty sure that description applies to "sic", but I have never heard "stet" before.

-Vessels42 23:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * stet is used extensively in proofreading. WLD 18:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This page needs major changes. Take "A.B. (Artium Baccalaureus), "Bachelor of Arts" (B.A., BA or A.B.), is an undergraduate bachelor's degree awarded for either a course or a program in the liberal arts or the sciences, or both." for example. This is not a common abbreviation. B.A. is, but no one uses A.B.

The sections should be reformated into three groups:

Common Less Common Out of Date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.6.206 (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "No one uses A.B." --- really? This abbreviation, while not as popular as B.A., is still in use. See, for example: http://www.commencement.harvard.edu/background/degree_notes.html http://spinner.cofc.edu/~classics/ab_degree.html http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/dos/transfer/require.html http://www.brynmawr.edu/conferences/commencement/ab.htm -- all fine institutions, and just four examples. Accordingly, I have returned A.B. to the main portion of the page. Lovibond (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Usage?
--Might it be profittable to include in each a prescribed usage or a list of where this may commonly occur? Thank you, Zach Beauvais 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--Maybe make a chart?

Per procura?
I think that per procura should be deleted, both here and in the list of Latin phrases.

Per procura can’t be Latin: the Latin equivalent is per procurationem. So, either it’s Italian or (less probably, in my opinion) it’s a shortening of per procurationem.

Does anybody know more? Tom Hope
 * My knowledge of Latin is minimal, but my Latin dictionary lists:
 * procuro 1
 * a)to take care of, attend to, look after, administer (as an agent or procurator);
 * b)to expiate
 * That means the only form written as procura would be the present active imperative singular, which, as you say doesn't make a great deal of sense. I would agree with you that p.p. is an abbreviation of per procurationem, and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you also.


 * Incidentally, pp is also used to mean 'pages' as in "See reference 1, pp 3-7". Is this also a Latin abbreviation?  If so, I can't, as yet, find a reference. - WLD 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * pp. is following the convention where a letter is doubled to indicate a plural.
 * We also see that convention in LL.D. for Doctor of Law(s).
 * This is also how the United States becomes EE. UU. in Spanish, from Estados Unidos.
 * I think pp. is officially short for paginae but I don't have a source handy.
 * Varlaam (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

sq
i recently saw this in an old translated textbook. it reads "resume the notation on page 279 sq." what does the sq mean? my best guess is that it's a latin abbreviation, but i can't find the meaning anywhere. the text is a 1959 english translation of a german text on optics published in 1899. maybe someone can add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.198.83 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My three cents
I noticed some issues while perusing this article that I thought I would mention:

1) Inconsistent formatting of the Latin phases. 2) Duplicate inclusion of some terms, such as "inter alia" and "sic" in the main listing as well as in the "See also" section. 3) Confusing explanation of terms:

It can also mean requiescant (plural) in pace, i.e. "may they" etc.

This is really confusing in an article about Latin terms. Not only does the parenthetical break the flow of explanation, but other Latin abbreviations are interspersed, such as "i.e." and "etc." making it difficult to determine what is part of the Latin phase of interest and what isn't.

I suggest something like the following:

It can also mean requiescant in pace, that is, "may they" (plural).

vs versus vs.
See item and example. 'Nuff said? Myles325a (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this difference relate to general UK vs. North American abbreviating practice?
 * Where the UK, as in French, omits the '.' when the final letter matches the final letter of the word being abbreviated, hence 'Mr' for Mister.
 * Whereas North American practice traditionally puts a '.' after every abbreviation, hence 'Mr.' for Mister.
 * Varlaam (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New chart
Hope I've taken care of the above issues with the table. I tried my best with the formatting, but there are certainly some changes that could be made. I'll be working on the next section at User:Scientific29/Project. Help would be welcome! Thanks. Scientific29 (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary sentence
See entry for ibid.:

''The abbreviation is used in citations. It should not be confused with the following abbreviation. It is better pronounced ibídem, with stress on the second -i- (as it was in Latin).''

The sentence above, in bold, is an orphan, as well as obvious and unnecessary. I'd argue that "It" (ibid.) should not be confused with any abbreviation if possible. I would think this goes without saying.

One may perhaps more objectively say that ibidem and idem are often confused with one another due to their structural similarities, but that's a claim that would require sourcing, and, again, I question the helpfulness of its inclusion.

Quetzalcoatl42 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

c/
Am I correct in thinking there was an older abbreviation c/ for cum, meaning "with"?

And that c/ has largely been replaced by w/ in ordinary usage? Varlaam (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. The abbreviation c is still used though. Steepleman (t) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

F.D.
Isn't it inconsistent to include D.G., with specific reference to UK coinage, and not include F.D. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.228.188 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

pp.
I've used "pp." all my life without really thinking about why we use two 'p's to mean more than one page. Thought about it today and wondering if it means 'pāginae plūrālēs.' Otherwise, I can't think of any other logical reason why we reduplicate the 'p'. Any thoughts? I can't find any site which gives this as the Latin for 'pp.' All I find is 'pāgina' for the single 'p.' which most English speakers think of as meaning the English equivalent 'page' anyways. Iainsona (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why no period after vs?
Seems to have been an inadvertant change at this edit. So I fixed. See discussion at Talk:Kid_vs._Kat. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Χ
Χ is not a Latin abbreviation for Christ, but rather Greek (Χ = chi). See Xmas. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Tomásdearg92 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

All abbreviations are given with full stops...
...and the very first abbreviation, AD, does not have a full stop. Either this sentence should be removed or the full stops should actually be added everywhere. I am not going to be bold here since I have absolutely no clue which option is more appropriate. -- ᛒᚨᛊᛖ ( ᛏᚨᛚᚲ ) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Last of Month
The text writes "ult. (ultimo mense): "last month" (see also inst. and prox.)[2]". That is wrong. Ultimo mense means "last day of month". I know that you English speakers understand it as "last month". You should distinguish what it originally means and how English speakers use it in their crankiness ;-). Hayos (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge
See Talk:List of classical abbreviations. — Llywelyn II   05:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Venerate
I believe V.I. (Venerate Iesum): "Venerate Jesus", as seen in the article at the bottom, was supposed to be Venerare, because it's a 1j dep. verb, with "venerāre" as the 2° s. prs. a. ipr. of veneror, since "venerate" is one letter off from "venerare". "venerate" is I believe 1d/2d ptcp. voc. m. s. of venerātus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:203:101:906C:8EE:38C2:DA4D:57A1 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

o.s.p.
I tried to add this as below (vide infra...), but failed. Could some clever Wikipedian fix it?
 * o.s.p.||obiit sine prole||"died without issue"||See genealogy.
 * o.s.p.||obiit sine prole||"died without issue"||See genealogy.

q.v.
This could also be read as quō vidē, that is ‘for which, see’ (an ablative); the plural of that would be ‘quīs vidē’. CannedMan (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Usage question
This may be a silly question but... I've seen the abbreviations used extensively in writing but is it appropriate (or maybe pretentious) to use the full Latin wording? For example, versus
 * "Only one city, id est, London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times."
 * "Only one city, i.e., London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times."

Or maybe the point is if you are going to use the full words to use the translated meanings?


 * "Only one city, that is, London, has hosted the Summer Olympics three times." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominyGrits007 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on context. Yes, actually using the full Latin phrase can definitely be offputting to some of your audience in anti-intellectual cultures like America's. It would make much more sense, though, if you were using it in an academic discussion of your feelings of Vergil's poetry instead of randomly inserting it into banal English descriptions of bygone modern athletic competitions.


 * It's not really the Latin&rsquo;s fault. At that point, you're obviously just being pretentious and that is offputting. Using that is is nearly as bad. A normal human would simply say "London is the only city to host the Olympics three times" since the Winter Olympics don't really count anyway. Even keeping the format, it's less objectionable to say "Only one city—London—has hosted the Summer Olympics three times, a legency of its imperialist past and benefit of its present role as the world capital for money laundering." — Llywelyn II   00:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

h.e. and h.l.
These are more common in actual Latin than in English use but see here for their appearance and meaning. — Llywelyn II   00:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)