« first day (54 days earlier)      last day (3233 days later) » 

00:22
@Nathaniel Done.
@JoonasIlmavirta Good edit.
About basic questions: I agree that we should allow them until they become a problem, i.e. if we are swamped by them or if they annoy our users.
@Cerberus I agree. I think that circumstances are different for Latin, since there are almost no native speakers and since textbooks can be very confusing for folks who have never dealt with inflected languages, "dead" languages, etc.
00:45
1
Q: When does a plural end in 'es' instead of 'i'?

ODPTake, for example, 'ignoramuses' instead of 'ignoramae', or 'cacti' over 'cactuses'? In which cases does the plural end in 'es' instead of 'ae'? Can it be either one for any given case? Why?

@JoelDerfner True.
But they may become a nuisance: we shall see.
No need for rules if there is no problem, is there?
 
11 hours later…
11:44
Since there seems to be no opposition, I'm starting to edit our help pages. I will post a summary at meta when I'm done.
12:00
I finished the edits and posted at meta. Let me know if I missed something.
0
Q: Updates to help pages

Joonas IlmavirtaI have made edits to several help pages to add site-specific content. I followed the conclusion we reached in a previous meta discussion about our scope. This post has three purposes: announcing this change, recording the old versions for later reference, and asking for feedback Did I overloo...

0
Q: Updates to help pages

Joonas IlmavirtaI have made edits to several help pages to add site-specific content. I followed the conclusion we reached in a previous meta discussion about our scope. This post has three purposes: announcing this change, recording the old versions for later reference, and asking for feedback Did I overloo...

 
2 hours later…
14:06
@JoonasIlmavirta Looks good to me! One thing I noticed on the tour is that brian's comment is probably not one that I'd normally keep around. I'd suggest deleting it, which would bring the other comment (mine) into the tour.
@Nathaniel That comment bugged me, too. I'm not against deleting it, since it doesn't really add anything.
Yeah, I understand the problem.
I'm not normally in favour of deleting comments like that, but we could delete it and ping him to explain it, or something?
@Cerberus We could do that. I have adjusted that question and the answers quite a bit to make it fit the tour, so I'm hesitant to touch the comments myself. I would feel less uneasy if I was not the only one to optimize that question for the tour.
I'll do it.
Ok. Thanks.
I've understood that the tour example question is cached, so it might take a moment for the tour itself to update.
14:18
@brianpck Hi! I have deleted one of your comments. I don't think you will mind, but it seemed polite to inform you. The reason is not that it was a bad comment, but that we needed to "clean up" that particular question in order to present it as an example question in the "tour" in the help section.
The comment below yours was highly relevant, and we could only have it display a single comment, so the easiest way to achieve that was to delete yours. Sorry!
This is what it looked like in the Tour:
14:47
What a considerate group we are!
Let's bring a fuzzy feeling to Stack Exchange!
fuzzy.stackexchange.com.
@Cerberus At least a dog like you brings a furry feeling.
Yay!
growls
Oops.
Hmm. I think furry.stackexchange.com would be something entirely different. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom#Sexual_aspects
14:54
taps on all three heads
@Cerberus I am incredibly offended
sane iocor
"Sane" dicis, sed in interrete sumus.... :)
*"Sane" quidem dicis
@brianpck Iam expectavi! Flagella me!
tyro cum essem (vel adhuc sim...) latinitatis discendae, credebam "sane" eodem modo se pronuntiari ac anglice :)
@JoelDerfner Estne "sanitas interretialis" oxymoron?
14:59
@JoelDerfner doesn't get it
@JoonasIlmavirta Verumst!
@Cerberus "Furry" is an (often sexualized) subculture of people who dress up as stuffed animals. (That's a gross oversimplification and probably a misrepresentation as well, but if you look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom you'll get the idea.)
Hence, furry.stackexchange.com might be a place that many people would prefer not to visit.
@JoonasIlmavirta Profecto.
@JoelDerfner I believe there are a whole lot of people who would prefer not to visit a site dedicated to Latin. There might be a bigger avid user base for a furry site than a Latin site...
@JoelDerfner I knew that!
I just didn't get the line I replied to.
But now I think I get it: you meant sane as "in a wholesome manner".
Ah!
Yes, that's what I meant.
putavi eum "punnum" facere ponendo vocem anglicam in loco vocis latinae
15:09
Sorry for underestimating your familiarity with the seedier corners of the internet.
@brianpck Ludus vocum.
ergo punny = vocilusorius ?
:)
@brianpck Vel facetus.
De rebus pluris ponderis quam facetiae: Iamne debemus facere sicut hoc responsum proposuit?
adhuc confusus est
Quem "punnum" Brianus fecit?
@Cerberus Punnum feci ego potius quam Briannus, illo cum joco de "sane"/"sanitas" interretiali.
15:24
Crediderim de usu vocis "sane" agi, quippe quae in ambabus linguis nostris inveniatur. Sed facetiae Ioel meliores erant.
Memini nomen "Ioel" Latine non declinari. Fallitne memoria mea an estne vero sic?
Illum punnum parum facetum dimittamus.
@JoonasIlmavirta Recte meministi.
@JoonasIlmavirta Tres ita credunt.
(Oblitus sum vocum quæ anglice "vote" significant—sententiam dare? sententiam dicere?)
@JoelDerfner Illud ipsum intellego!
@Cerberus Oh, God, now I don't understand anything.
@JoonasIlmavirta Potest ita esse. Novi nomina Hebraica saepe non declinari Graece.
@Cerberus And I worry that I'm accidentally insulting you! Which is not what I mean to do!
15:30
@JoelDerfner Tres faciunt collegium, ed collegio decernere licet. Fac quaestionem novam apud "meta" facias.
@JoelDerfner Nequaquam!
Numquam!
Quo modo "situs meta" Latine appellatur?
Oh, sweet baby Jesus, I'm stupid.
Nullum adiectivum ad vocem "meta" pertinens audivi.
@JoonasIlmavirta Facio serius hodie.
15:31
At first I didn't get Joel's joke about sane, but then I got it upon rereading.
@JoonasIlmavirta Nonne "meta" vox Græca est?
Then I misread Brian's eum as..."me". So I thought Brian was talking about a joke he had made, which is not the case.
So now I'm all up to date. Continuate!
@JoelDerfner Est vero, sed est praepositum. Sed Latine haud dicere volumus "meta ton situm"...
@JoonasIlmavirta Itaque "metasitus" conveniat.
@JoonasIlmavirta Supersitus?
15:34
@JoonasIlmavirta Sed præpositum Græcum "meta" casu genitivo utitur, "metasitus" igitur convenit.
Meta (tou) situs.
Accusativo utitur hoc sensu.
Sensu "post".
Genitivo utitur sensu "cum".
Adverb: μετά • ‎(metá)
  1. among them, with them
  2. afterwards
  3. thereafter
  4. μετά • ‎(metá)
  5. afterwards, later
(3 more not shown…)
Conjunction: μετά • ‎(metá)
  1. for consecutive statements (so, therefore):
  2. Μας έχει ξεγελάσει τόσες φορές. Μετά, πώς να του έχουμε εμπιστοσύνη;
  3. We have been deceived so often. So how can we have confidence in him?
Ta meta ta physica significant ea scripta post physica.
15:36
Mali tali voce uti, ut connexio cum expressione Anglica "meta site" clara sit. Hac causa "supersitus" male fungitur.
Sed ne "metasitus" quidem mihi placet. Hic usus praefixi cum substantivo Latinus non sonat.
Ah, qua voce utendum sit nobis dependet de fine ultimo.
Tres fines habeo: vox debet (1) esse Latinus, (2) facile connecti cum "meta site" et (3) rem bene describere.
Sed nescio an possimus omnes fines pertingere.
@JoonasIlmavirta Sed cur debet esse Latinus? Nonne adjectivo uteris "televisificus"?
Hmm... Situs metus?
@JoonasIlmavirta Site of fear?
15:42
@JoelDerfner : Certo. Eodem verbo duas res dicimus.
Et vocamus et imperamus?
@JoonasIlmavirta Duas veritates!
@JoonasIlmavirta moriretur si non iam Hadecum esset
@JoonasIlmavirta Funes boni sunt.
@Cerberus Quid significat?
I'd die if I weren't already with Hades!
Over situs metus.
@JoelDerfner Raro. Televisione rarissime utor aut de ea loquor.
15:44
@Cerberus Ah, Hadescum = cum Hades.
Pauci iuvenes adhoc vident hunc apparatum circa me.
"Peri eme".
@JoelDerfner Ita est!
Haud rectum est, sed mihi placet.
God, trying to Latinify Greek is enough to drive one mad.
Recte or rectum?
@JoelDerfner Sano.
@JoonasIlmavirta :)
15:46
Vel potius vesano.
That should probably have been Hadecum.
@Cerberus Rectum, puto. "Recte" est adverbum.
Or whatever the ablative is.
Hadicum?
Plutonecum?
15:47
@JoelDerfner Verum est, sed adverbiis nonnumquam uti possumus cum esse.
@Cerberus Ah, true.
Alioquin nescio an Latine umquam Hadem dicatur.
Estne candidatus optimus noster "metasitus"?
@Cerberus Ea de causa "Plutonecum" proposui.
Ubi eo verbo utemur?
@JoonasIlmavirta Intellexi.
Ubi et in quo contextu?
Situsne noster "interfaciem" Latinam habebit?
Forsitan eo uti possimus hic: meta.latin.stackexchange.com/q/168/79
@Cerberus Non, sed nonnihil Latine quoque describere oportet.
15:52
@JoonasIlmavirta Bene.
Et eodem verbo uti possumus hic in... chate?
Argh.
Fortasse metasitus optio optima est, etsi contra Latinitatem.
Quo modo "chat" Latinizetur?
In colloquio?
In camera hac?
Sermocinatio.
15:54
Estne contra Latinitatem an forte in Latinitatem?
Colloquium bonum est.
"Latinizare"...quid mirum!
Sed "colloquium" est nomen huius conclavis, non phaenomenon generale.
Quid novi!
@JoonasIlmavirta Nonne est ambo?
Esse potest.
Tanti laboris esset scribere "ad linguam Latinam adaptare", cum etiam verbo "Latinizare" uti possum.
Debetne verbum tale de nomine "Latium" derivatum magna and parva littera L scribi?
15:59
uterer minusculo "l" in verbo "latinizare"
> Merc. 2, 3, 53: "apud matrem recte est", i. e. she is quite well, Cic. Att. 1, 7 init.; so, "recte esse", id. ib. 14, 16, 4 (with belle); Hor. S. 2, 3, 162 Orell.; cf.: Tullia nostra recte valet ... Praeterea rectissime sunt apud te omnia, Dolab. ap. Cic. Fam. 9, 9, 1: "recte sit oculis tuis"
nisi fallor "lingua latina" maiusculo non utitur
@JoelDerfner ^ Recte with esse. Perhaps not in the same way I used it, though.
@brianpck Forsitan id melius est factu.
@brianpck In expressione "lingua Latina" adiectivum semper cum maiusculo scribitur, nisi memoria mea me fallit.
@brianpck Contra solis litteris capitalibus usa est!
Utabatur.
Nesco utrum.
@JoonasIlmavirta Scribitur.
Sed fortasse plures modi scribendi premendive sunt moderni.
16:04
@Cerberus Attamen verbum "latinizare" maiusculo scriptum alienum videtur.
Derivabanturne verba de nominibus in antiquitate sicut "Latium"->"latinizare"?
Aut estne phaenomenon hodiernius?
Est Graecum.
Non puto Romanos eo suffixo uti.
littera "z" semper (fere?) e lingua graeca verbum auferri monstrat
@Cerberus Scio hoc suffixum originem Graecam habere. Sed derivabantne Romani ulla verba de nominibus?
Ne unum quidem exemplum offerre possum.
Verum derivabant!
16:08
Forte cum a solum, ut Latinare?
@brianpck Ita est.
Ut videtur unum solum verbum cum z non clare de Graeco derivabatur.
Scio eos de substantivis verba derivasse, sed nescio an ita fecerint de nominibus sicut "Latium".
iudaizo, baptizo, allegorizo, gargarizo (mi maxime placet!), etc.
Sed puto cantizare postclassicum esse.
@JoonasIlmavirta Nec ego scio.
16:11
@Cerberus Forsitan haec fiet quaestio mea crastina.
mi videntur talia plurima in aetate christiana exoriri
@JoonasIlmavirta Bona erit!
@brianpck Et mihi.
Lodevicus Curtusque dicunt latinizare postclassicum esse.
@brianpck Non dubito, sed Latinitas Christiana admodum remota est a Latinitate classica.
Quod ad derivationem attinet, credo.
admodum? non tantum
Romani saepius utebantur lingua graeca Augusto regnante
@brianpck Lingua Christiana mihi non tam notum est. Fortasse falso credo.
16:16
@brianpck Certo utebantur verbis, sed suffixis?
itaque mi videtur non tantum hanc mutationem effici propter Christianitatem quam propter vulgi consuetudines
Fieri potest.
Sed saepe idem est.
@Cerberus suffixis sicut -izo?
Sic.
@brianpck Ita vero. Christianitas haud causa est, sed eodem tempore orta ac aliquot mutationes linguae.
16:17
Vulgata enim liber princeps Christianorum est...
potius (fortasse) aliqua verba graeca quibus similia non exstabant verba latina transliterabantur
sicut "baptizo"
Celerrime lego, fortasse igitur hæc non pertinente sit,
@Cerberus: quid sibi vult "princeps" hic?
sed—minime. Disputamus voces græcæ latinæve?
haud crederem librum IIIo saeculo editum "principem" esse Christianitatis
16:19
Nempe græcæ vel latinæ ex græce tractæ?
@JoelDerfner Disputamus, inter alia, verba de nominibus derivanda.
@brianpck Forsitan "princeps" significat "maximi ponderis", non "primus".
*IVo saeculo
(credo)
Puto fortasse quispiam nomen Græcum posse in verbum cum suffice "-zare" verti.
Rhapsodos —> rhapsodizo, etc.
@JoonasIlmavirta credo recte dicis. forsan melius dicendum "principem christianitatis occidentalis"
Non de omnibus substantivis ago, sed solum de nominis sicut "Latium" aut "Marcus".
16:22
nam graeca maxime utebantur christiani primis tribus saeculis
in asia minore, aegyptia, palestina, etc.
nec obliviscendum est scriptorum latine utentium ante vulgatam, ut Minucius Felix
vel (eodem tempore Vulgatae) Augustinus
@brianpck Quae maxime interest Christianorum scribentium liquentiumque Latine?
Scio Cratinum poetam voce usum esse "aristophanizo."
@JoelDerfner Quando?
@Cerberus Minucii Augustinique?
@JoonasIlmavirta Temporibus Atticis comœdiis.
Atticorum comœdiorum.
Or whatever.
He was roughly a contemporary of Aristophanes.
16:27
@brianpck Minucius floruit ante Vulgatam perfectam.
Augustinus nescio.
@JoelDerfner Ah, sed ille verbo "aristophanizo" Graece utebatur!
Credebam enim te de lingua Latina agere.
What I was trying to say is that Christian Latin was always "of the people", at least until the Empire was fully Christianised, and hence there are probably conexions between Vulgar Latin and typically Christian Latin.
@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, de verbis in "-izo" Latinis nescio. (Scilicet celerius legi.)
Ah ok :)
aliter credere mihi haud rectum mi videtur
The bit about the Vulgate's being vulgar was a half-pun.
Why is it feminine, by the way?
16:31
linguae semper elaborantur usu populari
(I was looking for a good word for "develop" but nothing came to mind)
"Biblia Vulgata"
@brianpck Crescuntur.
@Cerberus Nonne versio vulgata appellatur?
@Cerberus vel secund Vicipaedia, "versio latina"
The Vulgate (/ˈvʌlɡeɪt, -ɡɪt/) is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible. The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Once published, it was widely adopted and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina and, by the 13th century, was known as the "versio vulgata"  (the "version commonly-used") or, more simply, in Latin as...
sed "version commonly used" mi videtur malum
@brianpck Sane id legi.
"versio" magis "translation" significat credo
*potius
16:34
Versio Vetus Latina.
Sed non clare dicitur Vicipaedia.
@JoelDerfner credisne alium verbum exstare quo capiuntur sensus ampliores verbi anglici "develop"?
V. dicit versionem Latinam dici in saeculo tredecimo. Sed quid ante?
@brianpck Puto te recte credere.
@brianpck Fortasse evalesco vel evolvo?
Evolvere rectum apparet.
et mihi
something about "rolling out"
16:46
Putavi develop esse derivatum de devolvendo, sed erravi.
quid interest his vocibus: evolvere et devolvere?
in talibus casibus quantum exopto me imperio pleno frui linguae latinae
sed sicut sum has distinctiones minores non audio
Yeah, this is the kind of distinction that makes me wish I were fluent. I go mad trying to figure it out.
I mean, obviously evolvo is "roll out" and devolvo is "roll down," but beyond the literal meanings of the prefixes it's a mystery.
17:04
@brianpck Nec ego.
Putem evolvere fieri de minore in maiorem aliquam rem.
17:35
1
Q: What can we do to advertise Latin.SE?

NathanielOne of the main sources of this site's traffic over the last few weeks has been other sites on the Stack Exchange network, thanks to the Hot Network Questions bar. When one of our questions is answered within a few hours, and both question and answer(s) receive several upvotes, a link to the que...

 
1 hour later…
18:40
Should we feature the meta question @Nathaniel posted?
 
1 hour later…
20:09
Getting the word out over the coming months will be a major aid to our long-term success, so I'd say yes
Here's an initial mock-up of a Latin ad for Christianity.SE. I'll run it through chat over there as well for additional feedback, but here's what I'm thinking:
@Nathaniel That looks good to me. It's simple enough but not too simple.
Oh, and the comment thing has finally updated in the tour.
@JoonasIlmavirta That actually took manual intervention... I went back to the list of possible questions, picked the same one, and hit the choose question button, and it updated right away.
@Nathaniel Oh, I see. I actually considered doing that earlier, but I decided to give it some more time instead.
Anyhow, it's good to have that in order now.
20:41
Lovely.
Maybe give his eyes some colour for contrast?
20:54
@Cerberus ^^ Here's one with the original color and a new font. His eyes are closed/looking down, so they're tough to distinguish from his face.
Ah OK, I see it now.
@Nathaniel Very nice!
21:42
@Nathaniel Even better than the old one! It looks a little more vivid and appealing with faint colours in the image.
Cool – I like it more as well. I'll start the ball rolling but anyone can feel free to make additional suggestions
 
2 hours later…
23:32
Someone on C.SE suggested a sans-serif font for readability on small screens, and perhaps the one I picked is too cutesy, but here's the latest suggestion:
Looks great to me!

« first day (54 days earlier)      last day (3233 days later) »