Talk:List of Latin phrases/Archive 1

Move to Wiktionary
I put the moving template in there so you could discuss where it really belongs, because a question by User:Quadell generated no response. And I think this question is worth your attention. Don't get angry, no harm intended.Renata3 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would propose moving it only if being on a Wikipedia page and entering a Latin phrase into the Search box would take me there. Ravenswood 15:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ravenswood. WLD 08:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its a bad idea to move it. Take a look at the first five entries with links. They all link to articles with information about the history and significance of the phrase. I could understand (maybe) the idea of moving a list of words, but many of the phrases have interesting history, and having it here certainly adds value to the Wikipedia. Michael L. Kaufman 19:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ravenswood has a good idea, but I think that's technically infeasible; I don't think you can make a redirect to Wiktionary, which is essentially what you'd have to do. I also agree with Michael L. Kaufman's arguments for keeping it here. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 19:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I oppose moving it as well, for the above reasons. Adam Bishop 04:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving this is an incredibly bad idea. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:11, 28 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the moving template as the general feeling seems to be that it is in the correct location. My additional opinion is that since the Wikipedia is not paper the benefit of the doubt should be given to entries like this one (and to quotes in entries as well). I wonder what Renata3 or User:Quadell thinks would be gained from removing this information from the Wikipedia. Michael L. Kaufman 18:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to moving this page as well. Paul August &#9742; 22:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The articles with links are encyclopedic, and a list of them is therefore also encyclopedic. The non-linked terms also belongs on that list. Thue | talk 07:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Thue and Michael. Arkracer | Arkracer 15:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorting
PLEASE' everybody: Do not use computers to sort the entries. The last computer-sorting already introduced three errors: "Ex Cathedra" and "Ex Deo" before "Ex animo" (Upper/lower case problem) and "Ab Urbe... sorted by "Annus" rather than "Ab". Also when the "Q" section was processed three entries were truncated because of improper line splicing before the sorting.  And the C section had extra blanks inserted at the end of every header, which were not visible on the page but caused the whole section to turn up in the "diff", thus making it harder to check the changes.  The entries are presently sorted, with no more than two or three errors if any. It will take much less effort to check the order visually and fix any errors by hand, than to do it by computer.  Besides, even if you use the computer you MUST check the result afterwards, since it is all too easy to make mistakes. Jorge Stolfi 21:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Trimmed by JimD 21:29, 2004 May 17 (UTC). Left Jorge's caveat here [in perpetuity??])

Linking
I suggest to make wiki pages for all entries in this list. When doing so I expect to often find that there already is an article with this title and I shall then wikify the entry in the list. If, however, there is no article yet, I shall put a redirect pointing to the list. Any objections? Otherwise I'll do it so. Sanders muc 16:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear Sanders muc, a link is OK if there is a real article at the other end, or even a missing article that is likely to be written one day. Otherwise, please don't.  The reasons are (1) by Wikipedia policy, there should be no links pointing to a redirect page: every such link should be "short-circuited" to the final destination. But then (2) also by Wikipedia policy, no page should contain a link to itself.  From (1) and (2), what you propose to do is not valid. Saida another way, think of the reader: he sees a blue entry, clicks on it expecting to find more information, and is instead sent back to the top of the list. Not very useful, is it? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Jorge: Maybe I phrased it wrong. Of course, self-links are not helpfull.
 * Let me rephrase If somebody wants to know the meaning of "corpus delicti" he would enter it in the search field, hoping to be directed to the right page. As there is none he wrongly assumes that Wikipedia has no information on the phrase, so he looks it up somewhere else and writes a new article.
 * So what I want to do is: Check for every entry whether there already is a Wikipedia article. If so, make sure the list entry is linked to the article, as this is so far not the case more often than not. In not, make an article only containing a redirect to the list but without making the entry of the list a wikilink. Now, if somebody wants to enter additional information on, say, "corpus delicti", she'll notice that this article already exists but is a mere redirect. So, when replacing the redirect by her new article, she will look up the redirect's destination, discover the existance of this list, and hopefulkly figures that she should now, as an article now exists, wikify the entry in the list. Sanders muc 10:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Does this make sense to you now?
 * Your second proposal makes more sense, but I'm not sure why you would want to. The search engine finds entries based on content.  A search for "a bene placito", for example, returns this list.  Unless we have something more to say than the mere definition, I would not recommend creating the article.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rossami 22:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Argumentum
A number of logical fallacies are catalogued by Latin phrases which could be added to our list:
 * Argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition: arguing that the antiquity or tradition is proof of a propositions validity)
 * Argumentum ad baculum (prevailing by threat of force baculum is, literally, "rod" or "staff" --- and imbecile is one with no staff to stand on)
 * Argumentum ad consequentiae (Appeal to consequences)
 * Argumentum ad crumenam (arguing that pecuniary resources lend logical validity: "He must be right; how else could he get so rich!")
 * Argumentum ad hominem (usually used to point out a fallacious refutation by personal assassination; sometimes used synonymously with an "appeal to authority")
 * Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance it must be so because no one as proven it not to be, or conversely it can't be so because no one as proven it, yet).
 * Argumentum ad lazarum (converse to argumentum ad crumenam &mdash; arguing that one's poverty or lack of fixation on material wealth lends their conclusions more validity)
 * Argumentum ad logicam (arguing that, if the logic that lead to a conclusion was flawed, the conclusion must also be false)
 * Argumentum ad metum (Appeal to fear)
 * Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to misery; pity)
 * Argumentum ad nauseam
 * Argumentum ad novitatem (Appeal to novelty, converse of argumentum ad antiquitatam: it's new so it must be better)
 * Argumentum ad numerum (demogoguery)
 * Argumentum ad odium (Appeal to spite)
 * Argumentum ad populum (see previous)
 * Argumentum ex silentio (Argument from silence)
 * Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority: a variation of ad hominem but usually invoked of a third party)
 * Argumentum in terrorem (Appeal to fear)
 * Circulus in demonstrando (circular reasoning)
 * Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Argument by coincidence)
 * Dicto simpliciter
 * Non causa pro causa (the more general fallacy of which cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc are specific types)
 * Petitio principii (petitio principii)
 * Plurium interrogationum (Fallacy of many questions)
 * Post hoc ergo propter hoc (see cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
 * Tu quoque ("You too!" arguing that an opponent's failings justifies one's own or invalidates their argument)
 * This list summarized from: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html and from our own list of logical fallacies.

I notice that most of these already have direct Wikipedia entries or references in logical fallacies. None of these argumentum phrases currently appears on the List of Latin Phrases page. I'm reluctant to add so many without raising the discussion here first. (Edit boldly aside!). If we/I add them I would make sure each is linked to their own pages or to the logical fallacies page as appropriate). Rather than adding all of them en masse we could simply modify the introduction to link to the logical fallacies and the list of legal terms as other sources of Latin Phrases.
 * Since these phrases are also used without the "argumentum" (e.g. "Please avoid ad hominem arguments"), they should be entered as such. Pherhaps there could be also a single entry
 * Argumentum ad ...
 * ''See Ad ...
 * Jorge Stolfi 17:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to see all the fallacies with Latin expressions on the "Latin phrases" page, and a new page created as well. As for presentation, I suggest that the English translation (and optional examples) be kept with the long form of each phrase, and entries for the shorter forms refer the reader to the long form.
 * In addition, I love Jorge's idea!
 * Peter Johnson (21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

The mystery of the vanishing ad hoc
I attempted to create a link to the words ad hoc elsewhere. Mysteriously, anything in link brackets that contains the words ad hoc vanishes, like this probably will: ad hoc. It's in there. What's happening here? --Ihcoyc That works for me, seemingly; would ad_hoc work better? Geoffrey
 * I figured out what was happening. I had WebWasher running on the system where I encountered the problem.  WebWasher was filtering out anything that began with the baleful word ad.  Taking WebWasher's filter list offline restored them.

Pulvis et umbra sumus
Someone felt it important enough to reference "Pulvis et umbra sumus" in the umbra article. Yet that phrase isn't listed in this article. Should that phrase be addded to this article? Samw 20:23 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to; it's what it's here for. -- IHCOYC

Page format
I can't help thinking that this page would be improved by adding a separate page for each phrase, and just listing the phrases here without the definitions, with of course a link to the page for that phrase. Many of the phrases have their own page already. If a phrase is sufficiently well used to warrant listing, then it probably deserves its own entry in Wikipedia. Any objectors? Pamplemousse 07:02, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * What about a similar structure like List of Latin proverbs a single line definition but also a link. I find these kinds of list the most useful, sort of like List of leading legal cases in copyright law ; there is telegraphed information and a linking structure. &#8212; Alex756
 * I totally agree, but I do not have the time, nor the wiki experience, to do this. Kasperl 15:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. If all we have to say is a definition, then the entry does not deserve it's own article.  Leave it here and leave it unlinked.  See Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more thoughts.  Rossami 22:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * A phrase only deserves its own page if there's so much history to write on it that it won't fit, or would look out of place, on the list. It would be hard to compile one without it sounding banal.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:00, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ipse dixit
Isn't this also used in court to indicate the words spoken by the accused, as in confessions, etc.? RickK 03:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) I've not heard of that one. My understanding of Ipse Dixit was that one uses it to refer to a statement that was forwarded without authority. Directly translated: "He himself said it," as if to say: "Him merely saying it doesn't make it so." This seems at odds with the definition here, which seems to take its cue from Logic. (Which is fine, of course, but perhaps suggests that Ipse Dixit deserves its own entry? Indeed, I think a List of Law Latin Phrases deserves its own entry, for the definitions are often so esoteric and so at odds with direct translations that it constitutes a separate beast in itself . . . but I'm not the guy to do it.)  --Iason 18:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC) --- Ad interim Surely interim is sufficient, without ad no? Wetman 15:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In flagrante delicto
I removed the reference to sexual situations. Just as we use being "caught red-handed" for any embarassing or criminal situation, in flagrante delicto can apply to numerous instances.
 * However in actual and historical usage the phrase carries an implication at the activity was of a sexual nature. In other words to hear that someone was caught "in flagrante delicto" would (in the absense of other context) suggest that it was in a "compromising situation" (another term with euphemistic nuances).
 * In summary I think that it's a matter of nuance rather than definition but is still a valid part of our culture and language.JimD 21:17, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Ubi mel ibi apes

 * "Where honey, there bees" -- i.e., if you want support, you must offer something in return.

Is this the traditional interpretation? Offhand I would think of a more general sense, like "rose have spines" Jorge Stolfi 17:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't there be at least one "are" added in? AFAIK, it was common practice to contract statements and/or remove common words. -- Kasperl 17:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ut biberent, quoniam esse nollent

 * If they won't eat, perhaps they will drink -- i.e., if they do not perform as expected, they must suffer the consequences.

Is this the correct translation/interpretation? Jorge Stolfi 17:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Dunno, i am only in my third year of high school latin, and i've been out of the loop for 6 weeks, but to me, it says "Even though they won't drink, ...." i can't get a translation on nollent, and quoniam gives me just as much. But Bibere is definetely to drink and not to eat, and Ut lists as a lot of things, but not directly as "if" or "perhaps". -- Kasperl 17:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That translation is incorrect. Nowhere in the Latin is eating mentioned.  Can anyone find this phrase anywhere except encyclopedia.freedictionary.com?  That's the only place that I've found it, and it's got the inaccurate translation. My guess would be "Let them drink, because they are not willing to be" as a testament to the wonders of wine.  Ut biberent is a jussive subjunctive (ut="let" in this case and biberent being a third-person plural of "drink"), quoniam is a conjunction meaning "because" or "since", and esse is the complementary infinitive "to be" of the verb nollent, which means "they are not willing". However, any time you have subjunctives (both biberent and nollent are subjunctive), things are a bit confusing. Jonel 19:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW, one version of the quote comes from Suetonius' Life of Tiberius, 2.2, and it's "ut biberent quando esse nollent", or in context: "Claudius Pulcher apud Siciliam non pascentibus in auspicando pullis ac per contemptum religionis mari demersis, quasi ut biberent quando esse nollent, proelium nauale iniit. . ."
 * . . . which is the well-known story of Publius Claudius Pulcher and the sacred chickens. So the literal translation would be: "that they might drink, because they refused to. . ." with "eat", from the previous clause, being understood. &mdash;No-One Jones 19:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Cicero (De Natura Deorum, 2.3) gives another version: ". . .cum cavea liberati pulli non pascerentur, mergi eos in aquam iussit, ut biberent, quoniam esse nollent."&mdash;again basically the same thing: "eat" is understood from the previous clause. &mdash;No-One Jones 19:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Still, shouldn't the whole phrase be mentioned? --Kasperl 09:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! I have added the explanation. (BTW, could "esse" be "eat" - as in the root of "edible"?) Jorge Stolfi 04:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, pascere is "eat" (its literal meaning is closer to "graze"&mdash;it is the root of pasture); esse always means "to be". &#8212;No-One Jones 05:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * "esse" is the present infinitive active of "edo" ("I eat") as well as "sum". The phrase means "in order that they might drink, since they did not want to eat". Lewis and Short actually gives the quotation from Cicero's DND in the entry for "edo", as "mergi eos (sc. pullos) in aquam jussit, ut biberent, quoniam esse nollent". It's just a purpose clause explaining why Claudius threw them in the water, and is not meant to be a direct quotation. He probably said "bibant quoniam esse nolunt" (jussive subjunctive and present indicative) or something similar. Proteus 23:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. &#8212;No-One Jones 03:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, vici

 * "I came, I saw, I conquered"

Perhaps "I won" or "I vanquished" is a more accurate translation of "vici"?Jorge Stolfi 17:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Well the first two you mentioned are not really in common usage in English, but those are the normal interpretations. As for veni vidi vici, that is definitely always "I conquered". I have even seen the whole phrase used completely out of context (referring to a basketball game!), and translated incorrectly as "they came, they saw, they conquered". Adam Bishop 19:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Well, so how would you say "they came, they saw, they conquered?" Zach Phillips 21:11, 24 April 2005 (UTC) Venerunt, viderunt, vicerunt. alteripse 21:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A priori, A posteriori
I'm not a Latin scholar so I couldn't add and define these, but don't they deserve to be on the list? -- Jrdioko 01:24, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a Latin scholar. I can't claim such expertise either.  However, I am reasonably [sure] we read and I encounter these phrases in English literature often enough to recognize them.

This is commonly translated as "As before, so after." Iggynelix 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tempus fugit

 * "Time runs away" -- i.e. "time flies." Shouldn't this be "time flees"(or the past tense of "to flee")? it's a bit more of a, well, traditional, and IMHO, better sounding translation.
 * I agree.Jorge Stolfi 21:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * As for translation, "time flees" would be better than "time runs away". The id est of "time flies", however, is the common related English saying.  Also, while fugit can be either present or perfect (past) tense in Latin, in this case it is used in the present tense (so "flees" instead of "fled"). Jonel 04:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * i agree on using the present tense. I also think that literal translation should be noted first, and figurative second. Exactly so has been done. -- Kasperl 11:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The flees/flies thing makes a jingle that is really annoying. If you insist on keeping the literal definition, then it should be "time runs away", not "time flees". Personally I think it should just be "time flies" alone, since it's such a common saying in English, and the meaning is no different anyway.
 * I think that it is nice to give the most faithful (if not literal) translation possible, besides the conventional sense. A reader who gets away believing that "tempus fugit" means "time flies" may be tempted to say "res fugit" for "the thing flies", with lamentable consequences. After all, it is always dangerous to cite "ce qu'on ne comprend point du tout dans la langue qu'on entend le moins" 8-) Jorge Stolfi 04:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Persona non grata
What is the plural of persona non grata?
 * I am not sure, it could be Personae non Gratae, but this could be very wrong. --Kasperl 09:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Personae non gratae is correct. -- Jonel 03:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Divide et imperia
Could someone assert that the exact translation of "Divide et imperia" is really "Divide and conquer"? Whatever the translation may be, it should probably be added to the list. -- Itai 23:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe the correct phrase is Divide et impera ("ra" not "ria"). Literally, "divide and rule (an empire)"; both in the imperative, I guess. It is a proverb, not just a phrase, so it should be in list of Latin proverbs.  (There are still several proverbs that ought to be moved there.) Jorge Stolfi 02:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I updated the Divide and conquer article accordingly. -- Itai 09:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Lupus est homo homini
I just came across this and presume it is some sort of warning. Any of you Latinists have this one close at hand? (Also I note the complete lack of "Romans Go Home" on this page.) Regards, 212.138.47.13 02:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)]]
 * My understanding is that the usual form is homo homini lupus; in any case it means "Man is a wolf to man." Smerdis of Tlön 19:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Romans Go Homa' should surely be listed, I'll make time to re-watch Life of Brian to check the latin somewhere in a week or more.... Aside from that, I remember this phrase meaning 'Man is [like a] wolf for Man' or something along thos e lines, someone famous said it, but I completely forgot who. Kasperl 14:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember it was "Romanes eunt domus". Proteus (Talk) 16:19, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "What's this? The people called Romans they go the house?" :) I think the corrected version was "Romani ite domum." Adam Bishop 19:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

New (non-bold) entry format
The new format of this page (without the bold markup) does not look good at all under the "standard" skin; and the new (default) skin looks terrible on my browser. Jorge Stolfi 05:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) With the standard skin, both entries and translations look plain (non-bold) on my machine. I suppose my browser is too old, then? I am using Mozilla/5.0 (or 1.0.1) on Linux. I would gladly upgrade, but unfortunately I do not have admin privileges to this machine, and I must wait until the sysadmins find the time to do it for me... Jorge Stolfi 04:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely satisfied with the new skin either, but your comment confuses me. On my browser (IE 6.0), the latin phrase is still bold. Rossami 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Imitatio dei, imagio dei, visio dei
Should the religious concepts "imitatio dei", "imagio dei" and "visio dei" be added to this list? They are in Latin, but are not often-used phrases. Is there a list of Latin terms somewhere? -- Itai 06:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not now exacly what these mean, but as far as I know this is the only list of Latin phrases, aside from List of Latin Proverbs. Adding should be ok, though I am not sure. --Kasperl 09:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, the link doesn't work, but I know that there is a page with Latin proverbs. --Kasperl 09:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It's List of Latin proverbs (the "p" is not capitalised). Proteus (Talk) 10:08, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not really a proverb either. They probably count as phrases, all things considered. -- Itai 11:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

less common?
The introduction claims that this is a list of the 'less common' latin phrases. However, I see many latin phrases commonly used in english writing or speech in this list. I think it would really be useful to split this list in two. One for common phrases or abbreviations that just about every english speaker should know, e.g. 'e.g.'. (I love self-reference.) And one that really is for the 'less common' phrases. Alternatively, we could add something to the entries for the 'common' phrases to indicate that this is something that most english speakers know. Or we could expand upon that, and make a scale of english usage for each latin phrase: common, uncommon, and rara avis. Does this seem useful to anyone? 8^) --Danny Rathjens 04:35, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC) State Mottos? If this comment is in the wrong place, sorry. I saw North Carolinas state motto in there and I wondered about West Virginia's: Montani Semper Liberi which the state translates as "Mountaineers are always free," should this and other state mottos be included?
 * I personally feel that Latin phrases which appear only once in all of literature, such as state mottos, have no reason to be here. They can be in Wiktionary or nowhere at all. Countries are big enough to have Latin mottos included in this list. Cities, states, and Universities don't, unless such a motto is likely to be encountered outside of that (city/state/university). Ravenswood 23:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

abbreviation capitalizations
I wonder why some of the abbreviations we all use for these phrases are all capitalized and the others are not. Do any language scholars happen to know if there is a reason for this? Could it be based on whether the abbreviation was more commonly used in literature(e.g., i.e, etc.) versus inscriptions(R.I.P., A.D., Q.E.D.)? --Danny Rathjens 04:42, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

After the fact
Both "Ex post facto" and "Post facto" are listed as meaning "After the fact." Is there not some difference between them? --Pascal666 00:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Some nuance, yes: "Ex post facto": From after the fact; "Post facto": After the fact. While not strictly an argument of scholarly Latin, "Ex post facto" in (American) Constitutional law refers to the prohibition from passing laws which make actions retroactively illegal. Whether or not the "ex" is correct from an academic perspective, I think an entry for "Ex post facto" in the (American) Constitutional sense remains relevant. --Essjay 05:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In vino veritas
What about "In vino veritas". How do you translate it? In wine there is truth. --80.58.11.107 03:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "wine brings out the truth". It is mentioned in our wine article. -- Heron 14:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say, not "Wine BRINGS OUT the Truth," but instead, "Truth Lies within Wine," or, "There is truth in Wine". --Agreatguy6 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In vino veritas has been added and removed before. It's a proverb (and is on List of Latin proverbs), not a phrase. Adam Bishop 15:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I didn't read the introduction to the article.  Mea culpa.  -- Heron 16:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad Astra
The phrase is not proper, to my knowledge. Something in there needs to be in the accusative case (ends in -um or -am) since the preposition ad, which is used with the accusative is in the phrase. Judging from my limited experience, the phrase is "Ad astram per aspera", To the stars by rough (way)." I'll consult my tables: Latin words are usually rearranged in statements, provided one is able to make sense of it by judging appropriate case.
 * User:FrankBusch:" P - Per aspera ad astra (someone check this please)"
 * I've usually seen it the other way 'round: "Ad astra per aspera", To the stars through adversity; cf. Kansas, Apollo 1.
 * &mdash;wwoods 10:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's fine - astra is accusative neuter plural. (Singular would be astrum, but it's "stars", not one star.) Adam Bishop 06:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sine qua non
I just added sine qua non wihtout realizing that conditio sine qua non already existed. Can one of our resident experts tell me which is the more appropriate Latin phrase (or better yet, simply remove the one that isn't?) I think sine qua non should redirect to this page anyway; it seems common enough. --Ardonik.talk* 08:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Where should this page go?
There's a general consensus that &quot;List of X proverbs" pages (where X is a language) belong on Wikiquote, not here on Wikipedia, and those pages are being moved and merged there. But this page is different. It isn't Latin quotes, it's Latin phases that can be used in English or among the intelligencia. So where should it go? It could be left here, of course, but it seems to me that each phrase should be moved to Wiktionary as a separate entry. What do you think? Does this sound right to you?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:55, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

In media res?
I've always heard this phrase as "in medias res", not "in media res". Is it a typo? Alensha 20:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) yes alteripse 22:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exempli gratia
For this, we have
 * ... (e.g.)
 * "For the sake of example", "for example."

and (omitting some diacritical marks) American Heritage Dictionary explains "genitive of exemplum, example + gratia, ablative of gratia, favor". (Although ablative case feels informative, i can't sort out the implications of the cases.) If the literal translation is close to "to the benefit of exemplification" rather than close to the appealing "an example, for [the reader's] benefit", i'd value a short statement that "an example, for free" is unfounded. --Jerzy (t) 15:47, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * I wrote that it is literally "for the sake of example" but is usually expressed as "for example" in English. Is that better? Adam Bishop 19:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO that is better, but still doesn't directly address my concern: namely, since "gratis" can mean "for free", i readily believed a more highly educated mathematician who said in effect "examples are gratuitous when the thing has been adequately specified; 'e.g.' points up that fact, suggesting they are unnecessary and 'thrown in as a free extra'".  But perhaps that misconception is too rare to deserve explicit correction. --Jerzy (t) 06:55, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that mathematician was trying too hard to sound intelligent..."gratuitous" in English of course has the sense of being unecessary, but firstly, the word in "e.g" is not the Latin "gratuitus", and secondly, "gratuitus" word would not have the same connotation in Latin as it does in modern English :) Adam Bishop 08:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

a bene placito
I have the strong suspicion this is Italian (now usually spelled a beneplacito) rather than Latin, where the preposition a/ab does not make much sense in this context. Does anybody share/can anybody refute my suspicion? T.a.k. 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Deleted the entry. T.a.k. 22:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I readded it without having noticed your comment here, and someone removed it. However, it is indeed Latin, so I'm readding it again, this time consciously. The World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions says:
 * a bene placito adv. [L. ab from, by (1); bene well (3); placito one pleased (2); by one well pleased.] At will. At one's pleasure.

"L." in this book means "Latin". I can also find dozens of websites online that have "a bene placito" in a large list of Latin phrases (and, significantly, these sites don't mistake "a capella" for Latin). While it may appear somewhat Italian and have a strange, idiomatic literal translation in English, and while it apparently (like many other Latin words and expressions) has an Italian derivative (beneplacito or beneplacimento, a synonym for ad libitum), it's nonetheless a Latin phrase. -Silence 00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

per definitionem
Hi everyone, I wondered wether it would be appropriate to add "per definitionem". I'm not a native speaker and I don't know wether you use this at all.
 * Google finds 713 pages in English. Good enough, I guess. T.a.k. 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technical goof?
I removed a link to a page marked for deletion and found to my horror that half the page had mysteriously vanished! Not only that, but I tried to go to an earlier version to get the missing material and it won't go into the editing box where you type your edits. Maybe someone else can fix it??
 * Not sure what happened there, but I fixed it. Adam Bishop 05:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tabula Rasa
John Locke never actually said Tabula Rasa. But everyone thinks he did. He actually said something similiar... but not Tabula Rasa. Zach4000

Religious
Messa Ite Est - the mass is finished. Hoc est corpus chritsi - this it the body of christ. Later pardied by those who deny trns-substntiation as 'hocus pocus'. Agnus Dei - lamb of god Messa Solemnus - beethoven and others wrote solemn mass music. AMDG = Ad majorum Deus Glorium? = to the greater glory of god. INRI = Iesus Nazarene Rex Iudum?

Legal Terms
Should you keep the main page of all terms and add a sub-page with Legal terms? Pari Passu = legal term used in bonds and loans meaning 'ranks equally amongst themselves' Inter Partes - obvious Nemo dat quod non habit - you cant give what you dont have. A legal maxim to do with the sale of personal property. In camera - in the room Ex Curia - from the court Mens Rea - to mean or intend to do the thing. Mutatis Mutandis - changed as required CJL 28-Apr-05

Ave Europa, nostra vera Patria
The article claims this is an anthem of pan-Europeanists. A quick google search reveals just 4 results, all of which are replicas of Wikipedia. --82.46.90.231 20:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ave Europa, nostra vera Patria
 * Hail Europe, our true fatherland.
 * Christopher 21:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Haec olim meminisse iuvabit?
The entry states: Haec olim meminisse iuvabit "Perhaps, we'll look back at this and smile." Virgil's Aeneid I do believe the proper quote, in full, to be "Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit." The quote is from Aeneas, when he and his men reach shore. Apart from not being a complete quote, the literal tranlation is "Someday, perhaps, even these things will be pleasant to remember."

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Does this fit here? It (supposedly) means "Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.". Source: H2G2. EmilioSilva 17:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's videtur; and wouldn't it make a nice motto to this page ;-)? T.a.k. 18:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Is a 'List of Latin Mottos' required?
In reviewing this article and some of my contributions, I wonder if it would be a good idea to split off (heraldic) mottos into a separate article? Not all are Latin, such as the motto of the Order of the Garter. There is an article List of Mottos, but listed in order of organisation, rather than by motto - given that people will usually want to look up an unfamiliar motto, that seems odd. WLD 10:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

question
Ex Luna, Scientia "From the moon, knowledge". The motto of the Apollo 13 moon mission, derived from the motto of the US Navy. OK, but what is the motto of the US Navy?
 * The US Navy's history website says "There is no official motto for the U.S. Navy." However, the motto of the United States Naval Academy is "Ex scientia tridens". --Heron 19:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting of literal versus practical meaning
BenFrantzDale's edit made me realize how awkward and inconsistent the formatting of this page is in regard to literal translations. It seems like all of the i.e.s and e.g.s clutter up the page terribly, and we might be better off without them anyway, as per the (informal) guidelines. (Yes, I realize the abbreviations are easy enough to look up if you're already on this page. ;-) Without the abbreviations, we'd need to organize it a little differently for it to be clear what was what, though. So I think a good compromise of usefulness and formatting would be to organize the phrases (where necessary) something like:
 * Cum grano salis
 * Not to be taken too seriously. Literally, "with a grain of salt".

With this format, the most relevant meaning would always come first, making this page more efficient to use as a reference. The profusion of inconsistent abbreviations and dashes could be almost entirely eliminated, hopefully improving the legibility of the page for those who are just perusing instead of looking up something specific. Just a thought. I'm happy to make the changes or do a sample section in my user space if there is positive feedback on this suggestion. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 07:15, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
 * I second HosePunchKid's proposal. Ravenswood 23:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and start with some specific, medium-sized section like I did with Internet slang, since that will make it easy to revert if people don't like it. I'll make it obvious which section I do in the edit summary. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  23:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A capella
...Isn't "a capella" Italian? --User:Jenmoa 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is definitely Italian, not Latin. Good catch! The a cappella page even points this out as a common mistake. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 05:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fiat/fait
Arrigo, I've removed this:
 * Fiat
 * an already done thing (an accomplished, presumably irreversible deed or fact) - cf fait accompli in French

...because as I was saying in the edit summary, it just doesn't mean that. Fiat is the subjunctive of "fio" and (as you can see by the other examples on the page which include the word) it usually means "let it be done". Fio uses the passive system of "facio" so for both verbs, the passive (as you say, "an already done thing") is "factus". And that is where "fait" in French comes from, so there is somewhat of a connection, but "fiat" simply does not mean "an already done thing" and has no immediate connection to "fait accompli." Adam Bishop 21:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC) In an english text I some time ago came across with something like He wanted to present others with a fiat - that obviously is intended to mean approximately the same as fait accompli. Have you seen similar examples with your version, "factus"? we have to remember that not always, English use of Latin phrases has bothered with grammatical correctness - I think that's an heritage of monk latin ;) Arrigo 22:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the intention of "a fiat", that means a letter commanding something to be done. It still means "let it be done", not that it is a "fait accompli" (although it likely would be anyway!). Adam Bishop 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * At first I thought that "fiat" should be included anyway, with its real uses in English &mdash; but then I wondered if a single word should be in a list of phrases. Still... --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There in the list are other single words too. This should be included. Arrigo 23:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But those technically aren't "phrases" (although many of them become phrases in English). Adam Bishop 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Audio, Video, Disco
Is that a joke?
 * Well those are real Latin words (yes even "disco"), but I don't know if it's an actual phrase or something some kid came up with in class. Adam Bishop 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a joke allright: Once upon a time, the head of a prep school (or college or whatever) decided he wanted to improve the schools image by getting a classy Latin motto. Wracking his brains, he came up with the best, pithiest, wisest motto he could: "I hear, I see, I learn." Having done this he went to the school's Latin teacher and asked him to translate. YOu know the rest. --Iustinus 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Op Cit?
Hmmm...I'm no Latin expert, but there seems to be a descrepancy between the expansion of op. cit. in its' entry here (opere citato), and at Op cit (opus citatum). I may have just let the world know about my complete ignorance of the latin language. Maneesh 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are forms of the same phrase..."opere citato" means "in the cited work" and "opus citatum" is just "the cited work." Adam Bishop 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the ablative/dative is by far the preferred form. alteripse 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Comdemnant quod non intellegunt - translation
I think this means 'they condemn what they don't understand, not because they don't understand (or perhaps it is ambiguous.. but what seems more likely to me. Changing Zargulon 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Res
I added "Res" from RFC2822 (Internet Message Format), which translates it informally: These three fields are intended to have only human-readable content with information about the message. The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", in the matter of) followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of the original message. (emphasis added) However, I don't know Latin, and I don't know if this is the best possible translation. Therefore, someone who knows Latin should check this. --Dolda2000 22:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not an abbreviation as you wrote...I think the phrase is actually "in re", which is "in the matter of", with "res" in the ablative case. But even if "re" really does mean that and not "reply" or "regarding", can't it be said that it does mean that just because everyone interprets it that way now? In any case, "re" by itself is also not, technically, a "phrase". Adam Bishop 23:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it could be "re" alone, i.e., the ablative case of "res", with the meaning "about the thing". "Re" is also used in non-electronic contexts to mean "about", "concerning", etc.:
 * re1 /ri:, rei/ |> preposition in the matter of (used typically as the first word in the heading of an official document or to introduce a reference to an official letter): re: invoice 87. * about; concerning: I saw the deputy head re the incident. &#8212; ORIGIN Latin, ablative of res 'thing' USAGE It is often said that, strictly speaking, re should be used in readings and references, as in  Re: Ainsworth versus Chambers, but not as a normal word meaning 'regarding', as in thanks for your letter re TSB. However, the evidence suggests that re is now widely used in the second context in official and semi-official contexts, and is now generally accepted. It is hard to see any compelling argument against using it as an ordinary English word in this way. (New Oxford English Dictionary, &copy; Oxford University Press 1998, 2001).
 * Tonymec 10:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this. "re" itself doesn't mean "in the matter of." Technically, neither "in" nor "of" should be there, since the ablative can mean a lot of things, and in fact "re" can be used without the sense of ablative of association (I think; it's definitely not place where) Since it seems to have been decided not to change it to "in re," I've changed it to " [in] the matter of". superlusertc 2007 October 05, 16:17 (UTC)

Audentes fortuna juvat
Even if Virgil doesn't write like Cicero, audentis cannot be an accusative; it might be a dative, though I suspect it could be a misquotation (maybe by someone whose mother language uses dative after the equivalent of juvat). According to the Petit Larousse 1994 (Latin, Greek and foreign locutions, under "Audaces fortuna juvat"), Virgil's &AElig;neid 10:284 starts with "Audentes fortuna juvat". &mdash; Tonymec 12:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just an archaic spelling of the accusative plural. Virgil uses it all the time, especially in participles like that. It's really quite annoying until you get used to it (kind of like Shakespeare). Adam Bishop 12:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Non facias malum, ut inde fiat bonum "You are not to do evil, that good may result therefrom." — Two wrongs don't make a right shouldn't this say "the ends don't justify the means" ?

Inclusion of Latin phrases once or more removed?
Hello! I'd like to initiate a dialogue about the validity of including phrases that are not Latin but derived from Latin. E.g., lieu; see description. Is it appropriate to include such phrases here (and to elucidate why) with the original etymology, or in another listing (e.g., of List of French phrases, etc.)? Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 06:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is; if they are not Latin then they can't be in a Latin phrase. If you add anything derived from Latin you can add thousands of other phrases from the Romance languages and even English. Adam Bishop 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK; isn't that partially the point? Many Latin phrases have given rise to phrases in other languages; in the case of lieu, French.  I would advocate for including any words or phrases so derived, and state as much.  Perhaps we should merely indicate locus and expand on lieu in-line or link to it?
 * I do see your point about infinite regress, though; until this is resolved, I've placed it in the List of French phrases. Thoughts?  Thanks?  E Pluribus Anthony 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: Interestingly/divergingly, what of Locutus of Borg? :) E Pluribus Anthony 06:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if these phrases are in other languages which are derived from Latin but are not Latin, why would we include them here? I don't understand the point of the discussion. Adam Bishop 06:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the point: the original root word is Latin and many root words are Latin; I'm not advocating for including words or phrases not at all derived from Latin (e.g., Greek). Perhaps the intro for the article should clearly state this to prevent infinite regress and other 'collusion' then. E Pluribus Anthony 07:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But so what? "Locus" is not "lieu", they are different words in different languages, even if one evolved from the other. "Lieu" cannot even possibly be a Latin word. I seem to recall in the past that other people have added Italian and French phrases that they mistakenly thought were Latin, and they were always removed. It's a "List of Latin phrases", not a "list of phrases". Adam Bishop 07:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't deny this, but explain then the upfront mention of translations of Greek phrases to Latin, because it's a 'classical' language? If not, a clarification upfront is required. E Pluribus Anthony 07:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added a clarification upfront in the article; hopefully this will prevent additional attempts (present company excluded) from adding once-removed phrases to the list. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 07:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well that's because classical Latin speakers themselves used those Greek phrases, they aren't just random (sort of like how we use "in lieu of" in English, I suppose). Adam Bishop 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * He he; I realise that, no problem. (Also note the differences between modern and ancient Greek, the latter of which was largely spoken way-back-when, so this is a bit of a fallacy.)  Little of this was explicitly noted in the article, however.  Nonetheless, I've since edited the introduction of the article to accurately reflect why this is so and perhaps to preclude ... any more ambiguities.  Thanks for your engagement regarding this and concern.  Take care!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 12:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To show the difference between "Latin" and "derived from Latin": IMHO, "in loco parentis", which is Latin and used in English, should be included here; "in lieu of" which is an English phrase with a single French word embedded in it, should not be listed here, but at best in the part of the "French phrases" page which lists French-seeming phrases used in English but not in French (the corresponding French phrase is "au lieu de"). - Tonymec 18:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi there; thanks for your comments; accepted. My original query was somewhat instigated by the fact (and uncertainty) that Greek-derived phrases were included (without apparent distinction between the ancient or modern varieties of Greek) vis-à-vis other phrases derived alternatively through Latin, or "List of Latin-derived phrases" (e.g., French).  I realise the importance from a classical and etymological perspective of both languages (as a segue, I am half-Greek), but this wasn't wholly clear upfront, which I think I've now rectified.  I also accept that lieu is not "locus", but both dictionaries I've consulted (Oxford and Webster's) indicate the latter as the original root word, whereas many other words are incipient French without the Latin origin (and I would never advocate including those).  Make sense?
 * Of course, perhaps all of this is appropriate for the Wiktionary. :) In any event, I've included lieu more appropriately in the List of French phrases.  Thanks again for your indulgence and feedback. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter Johnson 21:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I added some tags to navigate within the "Latin phrases" page: The page is so long that it's cumbersome getting from one Latin phrase to a related one not in the nearby alphabetical order--e.g. (pun intended),
 * Pax Americana
 * "The Peace of America" &mdash; a euphemism for the United States of America and its sphere of influence, adapted from Pax Romana (q.v.)

Of course, q.v., (the abbreviation for Quod vide,) at the end of the above entry is itself another phrase on the page. Now, in everyday reading I recall the meaning of common Latin phrases such as i.e. and e.g., but my knowledge of Latin in limited, so phrases such as q.v. and cf. are ones I usually have to interrupt my reading in order to look up in a dictionary. Therefore, I wanted to bring the power of hypertext to the page, so that one can return to one's place just by clicking the "back" button on one's browser. My use of the "span id" tag (for navigation to a particular location within a web page) is the only solution I can think of, but it will be a cumbersome job inserting it in all the places I want to on the page (e.g., referring readers from all the abbreviated entries to their respective expanded form). Being new to Wikipedia, I have a couple of questions for everyone: Thank you in advance for any feedback you can provide.
 * 1) Is my use of the "span id" tag allowed and encouraged?
 * 2) If so, then is there any easier implementation than the "span id" tag?  (See my changes to the Pax Americana entry for what the code looks like!)
 * Use of "span id" is allowed. Wikicode is preferable to HTML when there is equivalent wikicode (because it makes editing generally easier and more understandable), but among wikicode, only section headers can automatically be linked to. So if it would help users to have links to a particular place in the article (e.g., in a large table), the "span id" technique is what has to be used. &mdash;Isaac Dupree(talk) 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I've removed all instances of "q.v." from the entries, because it doesn't seem useful in the context of this list. Simply mentioning any other relevant or related Latin phrases is sufficient to allow anyone curious to seek it out; adding "which see" is redundant and borders on patronizingly instructing our readers on what they should read about. I have, however, retained "cf." because it seems more useful in quickly mentioning related phrases.
 * What I'm most interested in, though, is what would be the best way of linking from one phrase on the list to another, related one. In other words, I wouldn't linkify "q.v." in the above example, but I would be interested in whether or not we should actually link "Pax Americana" so someone could simply jump to that entry in the list by clicking. Thus far I've been carefully avoiding overlinkage by only rarely linking to any Latin phrase twice; for example, if a certain phrase says "see memento mori", I won't link to the memento mori page because it's redundant to simply going to the memento mori entry and seeing the link there. I believe that cutting down on overlinking like this is important to keep the page as simple and uncluttered as possible, as Wikipeida's link system is already rather complex to figure out, as it's impossible to tell whether a link will take you to a section of the page you're on, a distinct article, a stub, a redirect, or what! That's also why I've avoided buried links in most of these entries; if a posteriori redirects to empirical knowledge, rather than linking to "a posteriori" (or even burying "empirical knowledge" within an "a posteriori" link), I'll simply leave a posteriori unlinked and mention (and link) empirical knowledge in the description of a posteriori. I believe that this will help keep things consistent and allow our readers to know, for future reference, where our actual articles are.
 * But now that I've split the list into three different pages, the climate has changed. It's no longer easy to simply scroll down the list (or use the "find" function) to instantly find the phrase that you're liking for. You have to navigate three distinct pages, which, while I still feel was definitely the best course of action, necessitates more effort for those who like hopping back and forth between entries. So, what do you think we should do about it? I've tried some other-entries-on-the-list-linking solely for the extremely shortened list on List of Latin phrases itself, so people can click on the link and be taken to the relevant subpage, but I used "List of Latin phrases (A-E)#C", for example, for any phrase starting with "c", rather than using "span id"; do you think we should try using that for such links, so clicking the link will take the person directly to the relevant entry, rather than merely to the top of the section (which isn't very helpful for several of our sections that are growing increasingly huge, like "A" and "I"). More importantly, while this HTML clearly works for linking to one point on a page from another point on the same page, do such links work for linking to a specific point different page?
 * Just considering the options available to improve navigation, as the list continues to (rightly; I'm very happy with how the list is shaping up now) expand. Anyone have any suggestions? I'm willing to put in the effort to take whatever measures necessary to optimize access to users, so long as we can decide on how to do that! -Silence 18:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Johnson (21:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
The entry for Anno Domini currently says "In the year of the lord". I have heard it as "In the year of our Lord" (emphasis mine). Could a grammarian of Latin please correct it if appropriate?
 * "Anno Domini" doesn't have any word for "our" in it - that would be "anno nostri Domini". "Our" is implied but it's not really present in those two words. Adam Bishop 21:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adam. ~Peter Johnson
 * Indeed, Latin often implies something being one's own when it is unstated; e.g., Latin "patria manet", literally "(the) country remains", would mean something like "my country remains" or "our country remains", at least if no other contextual reference seemed more likely. Historically speaking, it would be Christians using the phrase "Anno Domini": saying "the" lord, referring to the Christian god, would still only make sense from a Christian perspective (which is the reason some people use C.E. instead).  However, "Anno Domini" is actually the abbreviation for a longer Latin phrase that explicitly contains "nostri" ("our"), which seems like it could argue in either direction on this point.  As empirical evidence (at least of how common each English phrase is), Google found 601,000 results for "in the year of our lord" (quotes included in the query!) but only 21,700 for "in the year of the lord". &mdash;Isaac Dupree(talk) 20:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Johnson (01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
In some Latin phrases, the word for God is always capitalized, but not here. Is there a rule for capitalization in Latin? Classical latin and early ecclesiastical latin made no use of capitalization in the same way we do. Contemporary latin usage (always as a second language) tends to use capitalization and punctuation rules of modern Romance languages or English (which are pretty similar). alteripse 02:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alteripse. ~Peter Johnson

The difference between "phrase" and "proverb"?
This is the first problem I'm going to try to tackle with this list. Other problems, like both lists being severely infested with pseudolatin, jokes, and neolatinisms, incredibly inaccurate translations, and pervasive inaccuracies, will come after I understand the very basic issue of what belongs on these pages. Once someone has enlightened me on that, I can start to make sure that the pages themselves reflect our intentions and framework. So, the distinction between List of Latin phrases and List of Latin proverbs.. This seems to be a very loose distinction indeed. Presumably a "proverb" is a complete thought with a message of its own, whereas a "phrase" is generally shorter and incomplete, requiring context to make sense. But many things that seem to qualify quite easily as "proverbs" are commonly called "phrases", like errare humanum est, mens sana in corpore sano, memento mori, and quis custodiet ipsos custodes; so where does one draw the line? I can understand why Igne Natura Renovatur Integra is a proverb while Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum is a phrase (though some svavely qvestionable person seems to have replaced the "u"s with "v"s in the phrases page to make a half-hearted point about the Romans not having a distinct "u" letter, oy vey), as the former is just a title while the latter is a complete sentence with its own obvious message. But most of the other decisions just baffle me: Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus is apparently a proverb, since it's on the proverb page only, while Fiat iustitia ruat coelum is apparently a phrase, since it's on the phrase page only! Where's the reason in this? Likewise, how could one argue that Respiciendum est judicanti ne quid aut durius aut remissius constituatur quam causa deposcit; nec enim aut severitatis aut clementiæ gloria affectanda est (ah yes, we do love those ridiculous æs, don't we) is a "phrase", while Iura novit curia and Malum in se are proverbs? Or that Labor omnia vincit is a "proverb", while Veritas omnia vincit and Amor vincit omnia are phrases? Not only is it terribly confusing, but it seems redundant to have a distinct list of proverbs and phrases when the two overlap incessantly, when someone will rarely know which list to check for a certain quote (for example, I'd have expected just about all mottos to be "proverbs" rather than "phrases", but the phrase page is full of mottos!), and when the two lists are so disproportionate in size: the phrases list is 75 pages long, while the proverbs list is only 16 pages long. Notice how many Latin lines appear in both lists: Please, just tell me what both pages should have, and I'll work to make sure they do have that, since there's obviously no rhyme or reason to any of it currently. -Silence 21:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC) One more question: is an exhortation or pledge to take a certain course of action a proverb or a phrase? Ars gratia artis doesn't state some truth about the world or make a general claim, but just makes the promise (or the demand) "art for the sake of art". If that's a proverb due to its completeness and definite, unchanging statement (despite lacking a verb), then presumably so would ad maiorem dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God) and even ad lucem (to the light), which is why I ask: I'm in the process of sorting out what changes to make to both lists to establish consistency (or at least sanity), but I need my above questions answered before I'll know where anything should go. -Silence 22:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Nobody knows, you're right, there is no reason for it. If you want to come up with a better solution, I'm sure it would be welcome. Adam Bishop 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A mari usque ad mare
 * Ad astra per aspera/Per aspera ad astra
 * Alea iacta est
 * Ars gratia artis
 * Audi alteram partem/Audiatur et altera pars
 * Ave Caesar morituri te salutant (listed THREE TIMES on phrases page, as Morituri te salutant and Nos morituri te salutamus and Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant!)
 * Carpe diem
 * Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam (listed twice on phrases page, as Carthago delenda est and Ceterum censeo)
 * Cogito ergo sum
 * Cuius regio, eius religio
 * Cura te ipsum
 * De minimis non curat praetor (in a hilarious bit of redundancy, the entry for the shortened phrase "de minimis" immediately precedes the entire quote in the phrases page)
 * Deus vult!/Deus lo vult
 * Divide et impera
 * Do ut des
 * Dominus illuminatio mea
 * Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
 * E pluribus unum
 * Errare humanum est (perseverare diabolicum)
 * Et tu Brute/Tu quoque fili
 * Ex astris scientia
 * Ex nihilo nihil fit (again, this full quote is immediately preceded by the shortened "ex nihilo" on the phrases page)
 * Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (for some reason the first letters of this phrase are capitalized in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus...)
 * Homo sum (humani a me nihil alienum puto)
 * Homo homini lupus est (rendered without the "est" in the phrases page, apparently magically changing it from a proverb to a non-proverbial phrase in the process. what joy.)
 * In lumine tuo videbimus lumen
 * Inter arma enim silent leges (again, for some reason its page, Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges, is capitalized)
 * Luctor et emergo
 * Lucus a non lucendo
 * Malum in se
 * Malum prohibitum
 * Memento mori
 * Mens et manus
 * Mens sana in corpore sano
 * Mundus vult decipi
 * Natura non contristatur (misrendered as Natura non contristur in the proverbs page)
 * Per ardua ad astra
 * Primum non nocere
 * Quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur (one of the countless parody neolatin phrases in both lists, this one unusual only in that it managed to sneak its way into both "proverbs" and "phrases")
 * Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi
 * Quo vadis Domine? (shortened to Quo vadis for the phrase list)
 * Romani ite domum (another mock pseudoLatin phrase on both "proverbs" and "phrases", all the worse for failing to mention the entire point of the phrase, the infamous "Romanes Eunt Domus")
 * Salus populi suprema lex esto
 * Sapere aude
 * Semper fidelis
 * Semper paratus
 * Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice
 * Si vis pacem para bellum
 * Sic semper tyrannis
 * Sic transit gloria mundi
 * Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
 * Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem
 * Vae victis
 * Veni vidi vici
 * Vox populi, vox Dei (again, immediately preceded by Vox populi in "phrases"; we obviously have rather low expectations of the intelligence of our readers)
 * Cur tu me vexas (even more silly neolatin on both pages)
 * Semper ubi sub ubi (even more silly neolatin on both pages)
 * Ah. Well, I'd suggest avoiding the problem altogether by simply merging the two lists together, except that it's clear that having such a big list is the chief reason that it's been allowed to grow so decayed and inconsistent; it's unmaintainably large as a single page (of course, having multiple pages introduces the separate problem of the different pages growing inconsistent from each other, but that's a bit easier to deal with as long as they're internally consistent), but I don't see any easy way to separate it further: there are various subpages we could make to siphon off a large portion of the list to, but that would just make it harder to find those phrases quickly, and no matter what there will be a very large "miscellaneous" list left on this page.
 * Other systems of organizing, like by time ("List of Classical Latin quotations", "List of Old Latin quotations", "List of Medieval Latin quotations", "List of Neolatin quotations", etc.) might be interesting for editors (though a bit challenging), but wouldn't be helpful for readers, who we should assume know nothing about the quotation they're looking for. Hence the dilemma of any specific system of subdivision: the main use of this page is to provide translations and background info for common Latin phrases, but if our readers must be assumed to not know what the phrase means, we can only possible organize the phrases alphabetically, not by anything to do with meaning, authorship, time period, context, etc.! (Unless we wanted to do something really complex and innovative, like making "List of Latin phrases" a giant list of miscellaneous alphabetized Latin terms without any meanings or descriptions (thus allowing us to do crazy stuff with columns to conserve space), but just with links for every single phrase to an appropriate subpage, directing people immediately to the place for more information, in case they don't already know what page to search through. But that would be incredibly difficult to maintain, since it'd need to be updated every time one of the sublists was updated.) That's the big obstacle in our path, keeping us from making cute, easily-accessible little subdivisions of this page, like we do with so many lists of English phrases.
 * If we're going to keep the List of Latin proverbs, we may want to consider renaming it: what a "proverb" is or isn't is very, very hard to define&mdash;countless items on the list don't seem to meet the qualifications for being a proverb, like "a mari usque ad mare", "ad astra per aspera", and "alea iacta est", while countless items on the "phrases" list seem to be complete and stand-alone claims or statements of truth, like "Abusus non tollit usum" and "Nemo dat quod non habet". Perhaps if we renamed it to List of Latin statements or similar, and used it for all complete sentences (though it's incredibly difficult to define when a statement is or isn't "complete" in Latin, since they didn't use punctuation and countless proverbs have only an assumed verb present, especially ones using forms of "to be") (ah, "complete thought" is probably a better requirement), or more specific subdivisions, like List of Latin mottos or List of Latin ecclesiastic terms... I don't know. It's all very confusing and unclear and arbitrary, that's why I came here to try to sort it out. -Silence 23:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts: the separation between these two pages is ill-defined, this is a total headache, but merging the pages might result in a nightmarishly long list, yet if we keep them split based on whatever arbitrary division, then how will uninformed users know which one to look at? Perhaps we could divide the list based on first letter of the phrase? That way it should usually be quite obvious which one to look at. As for what should be on the list, I would suggest we be as inclusive as possible. Neo-Latin quotations should be fine, so long as they are a motto, proverb, or catchphrase of some sort: in other words, so long as they are "encyclopedic." Mea quidem sententia this should include phrases like "draco dormiens numquam titillandus" (because it is perfectly good Latin, and it is well known, even if some might not approve of the source) but not "cur me vexas?" (which is also perfectly good Latin, but so far as I know not famous.) Heck, I would even include phrases like "Illegitimis Nil Carborundum" which is thoroughly fake, but very frequently quoted, and what's worse, frequently quoted as real Latin. It is, me iudice, important for people who do not know Latin to be able to find and learn about such phrases, even if they are only jokes. --Iustinus 17:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on every single point except "merging the pages might result in a nightmarishly long list"&mdash;the list is already nightmarishly long, you may have noticed, and there's so much redundancy with the proverbs page that merging the two will probably only expand the phrases list by about 3 pages (out of the 75 total, remember), while providing the much-needed boon of ensuring that all significant phrases are easy to find on one page. I think for now we should merge the two into one just to make things centralized and consistent, and then worry about planning different ways to subdivide the list, since we seem to agree that the "proverb/phrase" distinction is a useless one. Currently, alphabetical and by time period seem to be the only consistent ways we might subdivide the page (by topic or source would be too redundant and have too many overlaps), but we should consider more suggestions before we decide definitively. I don't feel there's a strong need to resubdivide the page immediately anyway; we should worry about improving the page as much and possible and implementing the tables for now, and then once that's out of the way, worry about making it as short as possible. Removing the entries that belong only on wiktionary or wikiquote should also help a lot with shortening (though there's actually a strong argument one could make that Wiktionary and Wikiquote are both severely inadequate compared to Wikipedia in providing such an organized, comprehensive, and useful list; if a phrase is significant, I don't think we should exclude it even if there's not a boatload of information on it aside from that you'd find in a dictionary or quotebook, i.e. etymology, source, etc.), as will removing all the redundancies and doubled entries, which I am making sure happens as I go down the list.
 * I agree that our only qualification for including phrases on this Latin list should be noteworthiness. Making a POVed distinction between "real Latin" and "fake Latin" is too tricky, and doesn't do our readers any good anyway, and in any case many older Latin terms and phrases were originally puns or fabrications too. So, yes, remove the joke phrases only when they don't seem noteworthy enough (for example, I couldn't find much information on the "ass of asses century of centuries" quote, or any information at all on its source, so I removed it until its significance can be supported; I also removed ab ovo, ad absurdum, etc. because they're redundant to longer entries provided on the list). And that definitely includes Illegitimis Nil Carborundum. -Silence 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think calling Illegitimis Nil Carborundum or Semper Ubi Sub Ubi fake Latin is at all POV. It would be POV, of course, to call non-Ancient phrases "fake" though. While, I reiterate, I don't want to exclude fake Latin, I do think it should be separated or otherwise marked as such. It's important for people to know that these phrases are jokes, not good Latin. --Iustinus 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I rather like your recommendation that we divide the page into multiple pages alphabetically. It's the only system of page-division that people totally ignorant of the meaning of the words will be able to use, and there's precedent for such separations. It's not necessary immediately, but eventually, as the list continues to expand and as its current move is finished, it will probably become a very useful way to keep the page length from becoming so excessive that the page is unmaintainably large and decays over time. So, my question is: when we divide the page alphabetically (if we do), should we divide it into thirds, or into halves? If we divide it into thirds, based on my estimates of page length, we'll probably having page one by letters A to E, page two be letters F to O, and page three be letters P and on. If we divide it into halves, again based on page length, we end up with A to L on the first page, and M and on in the second (which is a rather elegant solution, since L is the twelfth letter, and thus a halfway point in the 24-letter Roman alphabet). Whaddaya think? Also, I've finished the "C" section surprisingly fast, how's the page looking? -Silence 22:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My reasoning exactly. As for your question, I think it might be premature to worry about how many sections we should chop it up into, but browsing the list to check I'm increasingly thinking it's not THAT long, so probably halves would be sufficient. That said, I'm not entirely sure what the criteria for judging what is "too long" should be. Perhaps people with wider knowledge of such questions should be invited to give their oppinions here. --Iustinus 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A table?
OK, I've been trying to think of how best to organize this article, and it's occurred to me that there's a strong push among recent high-quality lists to use tables to organize information in a consistent and appealing way. Though it would make editing slightly trickier, it would ensure a stable and very organized system of presenting all of the major types of information, which has been troubling me lately because of how disordered a manner it is presented in. It would also make it possible to have Along with the table, I would recommend that we merge "proverbs" back into this article because almost all the items listed on that page are also listed here anyway, it's too tricky to distinguish one from the other, and it's inconvenient to our readers to force them to guess whether the item they're looking for is in one list or the other (or on Wikiquote). In addition, the list would then be shortened by being much more strict in whether a phrase has enough information to merit listing on Wikipedia. A boxed link should be provided at the top of the page to the relevant Wikiquote pages so people will know instantly where to go and efforts between the two Wikipedias can be coordinated, and we should cut out any phrases that are unencyclopedically trivial (i.e. having too little noteworthy information, or not being prevalent enough, or both), possibly archiving them on a subpage (like Talk;List of Latin phrases/Removed if there are worries of deleting entries that we'll later want to re-add. Additionally, a table would allow us to color-code each entry, not only giving us a way to make the page look very pretty and eye-catching (since finding images for a page like this would be rather difficult :)), but also letting us easily distinguish the phrases in a certain way. My initial idea was to have one color for each period in Latin&mdash;perhaps one for pre-Classical Latin in light green (Old Latin: 2nd century BC and earlier), one for Classical Latin in light yellow (Golden and Silver Age Latin: 1st centuries BC and AD), one for post-Classical Latin in light red (Vulgar, Medieval, and Renaissance Latin: 2nd century AD to 16th century AD), one for New Latin in light blue (Modern Latin: 17th to 21st century AD), and one for Latin of an unknown period in light grey. But if that would be too difficult to research, or if the time period wouldn't be helpful enough to justify the color changes, or anything like that, there are plenty of other options for color-coding, like by subject matter (one color for Ecclesiastical Latin, one for medical Latin, one for classification Latin, one for legal Latin, one for Latin proverbs, one for logical Latin, one for joke Latin...), though the problem with that would be the many Latin terms that might not fit into any easy category, or the possibility of overlaps... -Silence 02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that would work, but don't go too overboard with the colours...everything on a plain white background would probably do just as well. Adam Bishop 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed the garish colors. What do you think of it now? Also, I'm strongly considering removing the "Sources" tag, on the grounds that dozens of the entries don't have a concrete source that I can find, in many cases all of the interesting "Notes" information (like Biblical context, etc.) is directly related to the "Source", and it's an easy bit of information to just include at the very beginning of "Notes" and will give all three other sections more room. I tried that out, along with a much milder color scheme (though I agree that it works better without the colors, at least for the foreseeable future), at User:Silence/Phrases, if you're interested in looking. -Silence 04:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great, but I am a bit worried about the effort of putting it together ;)
 * As for the "sources," I would greatly prefer keeping those. The professional study of ancient Languages is all about the locus classicus, and where we can find this information it seems valuable to list it. --Iustinus 17:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the effort in putting it together, yes, it'll be quite a task, but I think it will be worth it; and it'll be easier to make the necessary fixes now than to do it in the future, when the list will be even longer. Plus I planned to do a very thorough copyedit and fact-checking for the entire list anyway; the reformatting into a table is a perfect time for me to simultaneously do that.
 * As for the sources, I certainly agree that the source information must be kept (and I've not only kept all the sources we had, but also added a large number of new sources, and will continue to add sources for all the phrases whenever I can find them), but the idea of having a distinct column seems, now that I've examined it, to be a poor one. There's no reason not to include the information in the "Notes" section, especially since a large number of the phrases don't have any distinct or noteworthy source information (what's the source of "id est", for example?), and a number of other phrases only have interesting information on their source (so they'd have an empty notes category and a bloated source category). Easier to have it in one box, just in terms of layout; in terms of information provided, I plan to expand the current list, not remove valuable info. If we were to add a fourth column to the list (which I'd be very hesitant to do now, I think the current tables look just dandy), it would probably be a pronunciation guide with IPA phonetics in both Latin and English for all the phrases. But that would use up a hell of a lot of space and probably belongs in Wiktionary more than Wikipedia, plus many people are unfamiliar with the system so we'd scare off some readers. I'm liking the new tables more and more, though I'm certainly welcome to criticism and suggestions! -Silence 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually by "effort" I was more worrying about us mere mortals who may have to add a new phrase at some point in the future. It will be very easy to mess up the coding, especially with all the random people who contribute here. That said, thank you for contributing so much time and energy to improving this page!
 * As for the sources, OK, I am alright with that. So long as the source (where known) is given SOMEWHERE. I don't think pronunciation should be given: the question of how Latin phrases should be pronounced when speaking English is too messy and involved to bring in here. Especially when we are confronted by terms still in common use in anglophone law (e.g. habeas corpus) or the church (e.g. ecce homo, dies iræ), where non-classical pronunciations are honestly more appropriate. --Iustinus 18:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful work! I know I said I'd do something about it a while back, but I'm glad I never got around to it, because this solution is much better! &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-12-11 08:29:45Z
 * Thank you. :) Though unlike your solution, I put the more literal translation in its own box before the more figurative one, mainly because there tends to be only one "literal" translation, whereas there can be a number of diverse interpolations (plus it's a good starting point, and will tend to confuse people less who are trying to figure out the connection between the English and Latin). Anyway, suggestions for how to improve the current system are welcome (as are additions and changes)! I'm very happy with it so far too, though. It uses the space much more efficiently, and just has a more organized "feel". I have to give all the credit to templates like the one on soon-to-be-Featured List of Presidents of Venezuela, which I modeled this table after. -Silence 08:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't been too involved in discussions here, but the table looks great! I'm all for consistency ... speaking of which: perhaps this table can be built, or transplanted, for use (in a standard, consistent manner) with other phrase lists in other languages?  Once again, kudos! E Pluribus Anthony 09:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly, if the table helps those lists just as well; it will depend on whether the same sort of information is intended and being coveyed by those lists. It may not work everywhere, in which case we shouldn't be overconsistent, but it's certainly a possibility to consider. And thanks! Midway through "I", now... damn these Roman prefixes, they're neverending... -Silence 09:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the table looks horrible. The very limited horizontal width causes the phrases to be broken across multiple lines with only a few words on each line, reducing the readability. Also, verical lines in tables is typographically bad practice. –Peter J. Acklam 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you'd suggest we remove all "vertical lines" from the table, but I agree that not enough space is given to the first two table columns, causing the Latin phrases and the English translations to break off in distracting places in many cases; I tried to address this issue recently by adding spaces to the "A" table to try to give a little more room to the "Latin" column at least, but an editor removed all the spaces. Would it help improve the issue if we set the first two columns to a larger width, so only the really long phrases would span over two lines (and in exchange the "notes" paragraph will have much more lines)? I'm not sure how to do that, but I'm sure it's possible.
 * I also would like to bring up the problem that since the size of each column of the table is based on the average size of the entries in that table, the table proportions are inconsistent from letter to letter, which doesn't look very professional. Setting a fixed column width would also resolve this, though we'd have to decide where, exactly, to set it to. -Silence 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

De gustibus non est disputandum
Added de gustibus non est disputandum. Please edit as advisable. -- 31 december 2005
 * Like the other recent additions ("lapsus linguae", etc.), this entry was already listed on the sub-pages. The reason it isn't on the main page is because I'm trying to keep the list as short as possible (there are even a number of entries currently on the page that I'm considering removing, like "a priori" and "ave Caesar morituri te salutant" and "cui bono" and "errare humanum est" and "festina lente" and "fiat lux" and "habemus papam" and "lorem ipsum" and "pax vobiscum" and "tabula rasa") by only using phrases that just about anyone will have heard a few times before, even with no background whatsoever in Latin. But anyway, feel free to keep adding entries, both to the main page and to the sub-pages! New information can only help.
 * By the way, the next tasks I'll be working on will be continuing to add dozens of new entries to the sub-pages, fixing and clarifying the hundreds of redirects caused by the recent merging of Proverbs-into-Phrases and subsequent split of Phrases into three pages, and updating the style on the two pages for letters F-Z (i.e. uncapitalizing the first letter of phrases, restoring the "j" to phrases that are almost exclusively spelled with that letter, etc.). There's a lot of work to be done, but I think the lists are really coming along nicely; any other suggestions or thoughts on the many recent changes? -Silence 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In toto
This is kind of annoying, being redirected to a page from the word In toto to this page but not being able to find the definition of the expression I'm looking for, might as well not put a redirection in that case. 24.201.116.26 14:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't read the page introduction: very few phrases are listed on this page. In fact, I'm almost tempted to remove all the phrases from this page to make it brutally clear that this is chiefly an index page, not the list itself, and the heavily summarized list is only provided as a courtesy. Anyway, the reason in toto didn't redirect you to List_of_Latin_phrases_%28F%E2%80%93O%29 like it should have is because this page was very recently heavily reorganized, and there are still hundreds of links left to change to their more accurate locations. I've done a few dozen, but many more remain, so, patience will be needed before all the redirects are working properly. -Silence 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eyeglass prescription?
Why is the Eyeglass prescription article linked to from this page? It's down at the bottom. --68.63.238.53 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The same reason the medical shorthand section is linked to, for Eyeglass_prescription. Should probably be removed and just linked to from the individual entries of relevance. -Silence 06:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Remerge proposal
I strongly suggest remerging this list back into a single article. That article may be larger than our articles usually are, but the current way of dividing it is completely arbitrary and has no parallel in any other article I've ever seen. Deco 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree WLD 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't seen many articles. If anything, this list is on a lot fewer pages than most other inordinately lengthy lists (and, unlike many of those lists, this list still has vast potential to grow; I plan to add hundreds of new phrases to the list over the coming months, all of which will be more noteworthy and commonplace than some of the phrases we already have listed): it's only three pages long! That's quite manageable. Check out List of films: A-D, List of drugs: Num-Ab, List of airports by IATA code: A, List of albums (A), List of diseases starting with A, List of A Postal Codes of Canada, List of British MPs: A, List of mathematics articles (A), List of aircraft (A-B), List of aircraft manufacturers A, List of genres of music: A-F, List of songs by name: A, List of fictional cities A–M, List of people by name: Aa, List of cities in Germany starting with A, List of television programs starting with A, List of books by title: A, List of authors by name: A, List of philosophical topics (A-C), List of acronyms and initialisms: A, List of physics topics A-E, List of albums (A), List of mathematics articles (A-C), List of Royal Navy ship names A, List of Star Wars planets (A-B), List of notable cover versions A-M, List of male movie actors (A-K), List of collective nouns by subject A-H, List of U.S. county name etymologies, A-D, List of craters on the Moon, A-B, List of postcodes in New South Wales (A-E), List of Candidates for U.S. Representative from Ohio, A-G, List of Japanese authors:A, List of Victoria Cross recipients by Name - A, List of solo piano pieces by composer: A, and List of Musicals: A to L, to name only a few. I understand the problems of having to switch between three different pages to find the information you need, but considering that the first part of the list is 65k long, the second 52k long, and the third 59k long, and all are likely to expand enormously in the future, I think that this situation is preferable to having a 200k-long list of phrases. It's just easier to navigate. So, unless you have any arguments besides "it's completely arbitrary" (it's not, it's based on dividing the page as evenly into thirds as possible, based on page length, number of entries, the letters in the Latin alphabet, and the distribution of word names in Latin) or "it has no parallel in any other article I've ever seen" (I can provide you with hundreds of articles that parallel it exactly), I think this system's the best of a number of bad or mediocre alternatives. -Silence 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Wikipedia is not paper, thus I really don't see any reason we should have three seperate pages. The argument that it's easier to navigate is not true as the menu at the top of the page serves that purpose. More importantly, if they are all on one page, it's easier to search for a term using your browser's search function, rather than doing it three times. The only argument 'for' separation is that it's friendlier for lower bandwidth users. On the other hand, these pages are all text, and few people have anything below 56k these days. Thus, I vote for a merger of all three pages back into one. Edward Grefenstette 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added merger suggestions to relevent pages. Edward Grefenstette 15:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Even at 56k speeds, a combined list (at ~200kb) would take under a minute to download (40 seconds at 5kb/s).  That's not a long time,  especially considering the time saved by having all the terms on a single searchable page, as mentioned above. bcasterlinetalk 16:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have resolved this problem forever. List of Latin phrases (full). -Silence 16:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So if someone edits one of the three pages, it shows up on that full page? If so, then it does indeed solve the problem. On a side note, I'm moving the link to the full page to the top of the listing. Edward Grefenstette 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've read the editor's note. Thanks, Silence. Edward Grefenstette 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Manu propria merge
Is there any need for a Manu propria article? The phrase is listed here already. --Grocer 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only repeat what I've just said: Yes, it is listed here, but in no way explained. There are links from seal (device) and MP. It wouldn't help people following these links at all if they were redirected to the bulky List of Latin phrases. What's so terrible about this separate short article? &lt;KF&gt; 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps nothing, but what makes this different from a dictionary entry? --Grocer 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, its content. Please refer me to a dictionary&mdash;any dictionary&mdash;which gives you the information you get from this short article. &lt;KF&gt; 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. --Grocer 23:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Manu propria. &lt;KF&gt; 00:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Article restored and expanded. It is not just a dead Latin phrase, it is actively used in Czech Republic. Czech and German (short) articles exists. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cross-referencing?
Should we cross-reference phrases that are known by more than one common form? In other words, thus far, we only have one entry per phrase; none of the phrases just say "This is a misspelling/variant of X, see X", because that would cause a lot of bloat and redundant entries. However, it might make it easier for people to find entries that are listed in a part of the alphabet they aren't aware it belongs in (for example, the many variants of Ave Caesar morituri te salutant, starting with everything from "morituri" to "nos"). Should we include "empty entries" just to direct users to the actual entry? And if so, how should we format them? I don't think it's a good idea to make them look like normal entries, and I absolutely don't think we should repeat the information from the real entry in the disambig-entries, rather than just telling them where the right entry is briefly ("See X"). But how to handle it? Should we italicize the whole line? Avoid bolding the initial phrase? Or what? Should we provide a translation of the phrase even though it's not the main entry, then use the "Notes" space to just say "See X" for the main entry? Or what? -Silence 14:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas engraving inscription
Could anyone more learned than I provide a translation of the text on the engraving of Pocahontas made in her lifetime. The engraving illustrates the Pocahontas article, but the text is reproduced below for your convenience. I've made a first attempt at it, but my Latin is almost non-existent. Note that in the inscription, there is a horizontal line above the L of ALS. "MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISS : PRINC : POWHATANI IMP:VIRGINIÆ." My attempt is: "Matoaka, also (known as) Rebecca, daughter of the powerful [leader, head, chief, master, superior, director, ruler, prince, sovereign,emperor] of the Powhatan empire, Virginia." Thanks - WLD 10:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's essentially correct, "als" is an abbreviation for "alias", but "potentissimus" is "most powerful", so "Matoaka, also known as Rebecca, daughter of the most powerful prince". Our Powhatan article says that is the name of the nation, but also a title meaning "emperor" and was often considered to be the Powhatan's personal name. So you could interpret the rest in various ways, "daughter of the most powerful prince Powhatan, the emperor of Virginia", or "of the most powerful prince of the Powhatan Empire of Virginia", or "of the most powerful prince, the emperor of Powhatan of Virginia". I think in classical Latin inscriptions, "IMP" usually means "imperator", so emperor rather than empire, if that helps. And "princeps", as you said, can mean many things. Adam Bishop 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Your translation is largely accurate. As you deduced, ALS is an abbreviation for alias, which is in turn short for alias dictus, "otherwise called", and PRINC for principis ("of the leader"). However, POTENTISS is short for potentissimi, which is the superlative ("of the most powerful"); it would have just been potentis if it was "of the powerful". Also, if I'm interpretating the colons correctly, "Powhatan" refers not to the Powhatan tribe, but to Chief Powhatan, Pocahontas' father; thus, "of the powerful chief Powhatan", not "of the powerful chief of the Powhatan empire"; likewise, IMP (short for imperii) seems to refer to Virginia, not to the Powhatan domain: "the daughter of the most powerful Chief Powhatan of the empire of Virginia", not "the daughter of the most powerful chief of the Powhatan Empire of Virginia"; I could be mistaken, though. Also, did you notice the Latin written in the lower, darkened portion of the image you're refering to? It says Aetatis suae 21 A. 1616, meanning that she's 21 and the year (anno) is 1616. Both anno and aetatis suae can be found in the phrase list, incidentally. -Silence 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank-you both, for the amazingly quick reply, and for your efforts. WLD 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Latin Phrases & Proverbs
I would like to recommend this site http://www.just-quotes.com for an external link that has an excellent source of searchable universal Latin proverbs and Latin bible proverbs and Latin phrases with English translations. RobertTB 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

s.v. redirect?
The term s.v. redirects to this page... why? s.v. is not in the list of abbreviated Latin terms. Am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmagill (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * No, you haven't missed anything, the consistency of these pages are very bad. Many pages redirect to the mother article instead of the right list. I made s.v. point to List of Latin phrases (P–Z), but of course, I would prefer the solution I suggest below. --Merzul 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)