This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The article is wrong — at least two British exam boards offer Latin. The SQA does as well. Either information relating to Scotland needs to be added to that paragraph, or it needs to be retitled to "England". Geoffrey Sneddon 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How can there be a pronounciation of Latina? As far as I have been taught (college level), we do not know how the Romans pronounced their words other than theories. (Such as the V as a wa) And Church Latin (which we do know how to pronounce) is not traditional Latin. Can anyone defend the use of the pronounciation? Canutethegreat ( talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One aspect of pronunciation that might be useful are the primary sources - the actual documents discussing linguistics and pronunciation by the actual Romans. Speech and oratory was finely disected, and any odd habits of diction or accent were punced upon. I'll see what I can turn up... Mdw0 ( talk) 02:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
These arguments are all valid and to me quite interesting. You should know there is absolutely nothing new here; you are reinventing the wheel. However every new student of Latin must reinvent the wheel for himself. We do not inherit the knowledge of our society. The argument is, since Latin cannot be transcribed as spoken, how can we know how it was pronounced? I might add, even if it could be transcibed, how could we know how it was pronounced? The same may be argued of any language whatever. You might get more subtle and say, if you cannot know how it was pronounced you cannot presume it had any pronounciation. I admit we cannot know by evidence of the senses. I deny that we cannot know. On the contrary, there is method of discovering the unseen. It is called deduction. Reasoning from the vast body of Latin literature and inscriptions, and from the traces of Latin in other languages as data, it is possible to deduce the pronounciation of Latin at any given period for which there is adequate data. Latinists have been doing this deduction for centuries. As for the validity of deduction as a method of knowing, well, that is a somewhat larger topic. As for the authenticity of the data, that also is another topic. As to how this relates to WP, well, it is totally unncessary to prove what the pronounciation of Latin was. All you have to do is find the appropriate sources and follow them. We are not sending anyone out on a mission to discover the pronounciation of Latin, only on a mission to discover the discoveries of others. Metadiscovery is what we want. Dave ( talk) 12:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The History section needs significant expansion. RedRabbit1983 14:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
In his book Language for Everybody (1957), linguist Mario Pei showed the development of the language from what he said was the oldest sample of the language, the "Praenestine Fibula," from the 6th century BC. The inscription translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."
Can we make this about Latin instead of Mario Pei? RedRabbit1983 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone visit this talk page? If so, I'd like to extend my greetings and talk about the article. RedRabbit 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
RedRabbit, hi, I think the article suffers from having had its major content hived off into the more detailed articles (History of Latin, Classical Latin etc). The History section therefore can hard;y be much longer. However, I agree with you that the Legacy section contains a lot of apparently random stuff which should either be pruned or expanded into some sort of coherency.
Since the main content is now defaulting towards a consideration of the status/teaching of Latin country-by-country (which is interesting, and should be expanded), perhaps we ought to consider reforming the article on the following lines:
leaving a straightforward orderly introduction without too much detail, as this would all be in the easy-to-follow-linked detailed articles.
Is this sort of what you had in mind yourself? Djnjwd 20:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed this text from the article. My understanding is that the consensus that the Praeneste fibula is a nineteenth century hoax, and not an authentic artifact of early Latin, is fairly well accepted at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Surely these are not vocatives, and not direct address, but exclamations, and are accusative, although the endings don't make this obvious. Cicero was not addressing the times and the customs of the Romans (or of Catiline) but apostrophizing them. There is a similar construction in Virgil's 'O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint, agricolas' (Georgics II 458-9), and here the ending makes it obvious that the accusative is used. Impert 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Another example: 'me miseram' (Aeneid). Reference Latin, Gavin Betts, Hodder & Stoughton Teach Yourself Books,1986 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impert ( talk • contribs) 22:30, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Hi, I live in Belgium and I can tell you there is still latin education in secundary schools. I read our minister of education is planning to change the system by 2011.(De Morgen 01/09/2007 that is a newspaper :p)
Thomas271104 21:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I did it. Leave a comment on my talk page to tell me what you think. David G Brault 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a big improvement on what was there before, esp. in the introduction; two points:
at the moment, they are rather uneasily yoked together. Djnjwd 22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the article in its current state, it appears that the good article criteria are not being met. Specifically, criteria 2 is the problem; this article is well below standard with regards to its level of referencing. There are no inline citations at all, and many places seem to beg for them. If you would like to see this article brought back up to GA standards, please join the discussion at good article reassessment -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Over in this article, a lot is made of Hungarian having two basic words for red, where one isn't a variant of the other. Would Latin with ater and niger for black and albus and candidus for white be in the same boat? If so, do you think something could be added to the article to illustrate this? Peter1968 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what petarum means? I just can't find out for the life of me what the meaning of this word is. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
he is write and yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.10.48 ( talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to remove the following from the Modern Uses section:
Spells in the Harry Potter series are sometimes made from Latin words. For example, accio, the Summoning Charm, is Latin for "I summon".
While an interesting fact to some, it seems to be more appropriate for a "trivia" section or a "uses in popular culture" section rather then as an example of a modern use of Latin. Dpes anyone have any objections? -- Xaraphim ( talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Harry Potter reference that was re-added today per the previous discussion here. However, would it not be noteable to mention in general the magic spells in television today are almost always said in Latin? Maybe this can be mentioned and if needed, then give a couple of examples of tv shows/films such as Harry Potter. I do think that is noteable for modern usage since it's such a wide spread thing. Kman543210 ( talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article get vandalized so much? Balonkey ( talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
My theory is that Latin, taken in schools, is, while fulfilling sometimes when you're in the mood for it, is a source of terrible frustration at other times. David G Brault ( talk) 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a terrible theory. No offense, i'm not flaming you or anything. I just feel that that is not why this article is so often vandalized. I feel that is due to its likeliness to pop-up on any search for a Latin information article. This leads to an abundance of yahoos who think the know what they aretalkinga bout typing random junk that is not useful.-- HermXIV ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone besides me confused by the multitude of dialects as well as corruption of medieval, or church, Latin? -- HermXIV ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
it states that latin was spoken by the romans during the roman republic and roman empire what about during the roman kingdom did they not speak latin than?
Also i see italian is the closest to latin, funny i always thought listening to latin spoken than here any of the romance languages spoken i always though french was the closest thing.-- Wikiscribe ( talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the non italicized latin text in the Nouns section, and put them all "definition" "translation" for ease of understanding. The rest of it needs going over by a dedicated editor for awhile to get it all right or at least consistent though. 98.209.100.83 ( talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've commented this part out as these examples are given far more exhaustive treatment in the Latin declension article. Peter1968 ( talk) 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does French Wikipedia have the article fr:Roman (langue), yet there's only one interwiki, to the Italian WP? Do we need an article on this? Badagnani ( talk) 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it because it's a different dialect (sort of...) now?
Lu na ke et 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: your question: Latin is not extinct; well, sort of. The Latin taught in schools is the heritage passed down by the original speakers and writers of Latin. We have the primary tools for learning, understanding, and utilizing Latin much as the Romans did. We also have the benefit of more interconnected Latin scholars, and more comprehensive linguistic histories than did the Latin experts of the Middle Ages, etc. People can speak it because they can approximate the soundings of Latin diphthongs, vowels, consonants, stresses, and their combination. The terms "dead" and "extinct" when said of Latin are, to me, similar to the term "imaginary" when applied to numbers. These are misnomers which have been appended to the detriment of understanding and appreciation. Many times I've told people of my interest and studies in Latin; just as many times the question arises, "But Latin's dead. What are you going to do with that?" Latin is, by my estimation, alive in every language that owes it a vocabulary (Romantic, that is). And pronouncing it "dead" or "extinct" is just a fool's way of dismissing something that can unlock meaning and understanding of the Romantic languages. (Mind, by no means do I call you a fool. Latin has long been damned by those who never took it, both educated and ignorant; those who never applied it; and who believe its uses limited at best. This, among many other reasons, has cast a shadow over its instruction; sadly, this estimation is now part of our Latin heritage. The disdain of Latin is commonplace, and common knowledge. It has bred the "useless" and "extinct" rhetoric which you blamelessly apply in your question.) Please don't take my opinion as fact. I have cited no facts because I give you none. But it's hard to call a tool broken when it's a little rusty. Will Latin ever be spoken again by large groups of people, as it was two thousand years ago? I certainly doubt it. But I argue against the terms "extinct" or "dead," because that would mean gone forever. Right? DeftHand ( talk) 10:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a definitive rule on capitalisation of titles, such as aedile, questor, censor etc. I know its traditional in English to capitalise Senate, so does that translate across to capitalising Senator? Mdw0 ( talk) 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a latinist, and as much as I always like to tell people that Latin lives on to a very high degree, I cannot defend that Latin is not an extinct language. A lot of people know the language, some know it very well, good enough for long, fluent discourses even, but it is not the mother tongue of anyone. Therefore, although still a language in use, it is by definition extinct. Counter arguments? -- Alexlykke ( talk) 11:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me if the words "yes" and "no" occur in Latin? I don't remember them at school (a long time ago!) I understand the words do not exist in Irish.Osborne 09:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, but you aren't actually debating the issue at hand. -- Alexlykke ( talk) 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I take issue with the claim that Latin is regulated by the Opus Fundatum Latinitas, an arm of the Catholic Church. In the first place, neither the Holy See nor the other institutions of the Church use Latin in daily use, so its claim to be the sole living authority on the matter is rather dubious. Secondly, the Opus Fundatum Latinitas is not (to my knowledge, at least) recognized by by the American Classical League, the American Philological Society, nor the Philological Society of the UK, whose members are arguably responsible for the most English-language teaching of Latin in the world. Lastly, almost no one bothers to teach the Ecclesiastical Latin modes still used by the Vatican on those rare occasions when they use Latin at all, preferring instead to instruct students in classical Latin, almost always with strictly Classical pronunciation, and this is true even of Catholic secondary schools and universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.223.207 ( talk) 01:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As I read it, the infobox says that it's regulated by that organization with respect to its official status in the Vatican city, which happens to be the only location in the world where Latin has official status. AnonMoos ( talk) 08:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I wondered if there was an editor who could add some insight into the origin of the word limen. The oxford english dictionary entry describes the origin of the word from psychology, via the german word schwelle, meaning threshold. But there is also a latin word limen, that also means threshold. The psychological meaning has come to dominate things today, but this wasn't always the case. The problem is, how to describe this in the wikipedia entry. People want to find the origin of the word, but in a sense, the word has two origins, one from psychology, and one from latin that does not have any psychological meaning. I am struggling to see how this latter meaning has any relevance left today. But I think it is important to note that psychology alone might not account for the meaning it gives our words today. There is a brief discussion I left here last May. — Fred 114 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this link of any help to you: limen
Why is it "paradoxical" that the Renaissance caused an upsurge of Latin usage? As I am sure you are aware, the Renaissance refers to the rebirth of classical cultural ideas, literature, etc. Latin, the language of the classical Romans, is obviously key to this concept. I would say that, rather than being paradoxical, the Renaissance depended upon the study of Latin, and the study of Latin is involved in the definition of the Renaissance. Perhaps someone was misconstruing the Renaissance as simply "modernization," and therefore opposed to Latin, an ancient and therefore "not modern" language? Just a thought, but I don't think we should keep the paradox phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.10.22 ( talk) 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why it is so hard to learn latin-I am aware that its a dead language, but don't you think we should bring it back? The language has been in constant use for centuries and then, when it became the twentieth century, its considered unfashionable or something? I am merely a child but I already firmly believe that we should not have let Latin slip into our past, unforgotten under a pile of dust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.189.155 ( talk) 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link to the online paper ephemeris as it is now a spam website. 71.64.155.42 ( talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can some of you chime in on this Latin phrase Canes pugnaces, they are trying to #Redirect/delete it to the a similar English translation Dogs in warfare. See the talk page here: Talk:Canes_pugnaces. Thank you. Green Squares ( talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have proposed a WikiProject Latin for all Latin based articles but haven't had much of a response yet, I was wandering what views you had, the proposals page is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Latin. 95jb14 ( talk) 18:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have invented a game. Go to a random article on Wiki, then continue clicking on the first link of each page (not inc. disambig) until you get back to 'Latin'. It always gets back suprisingly quickly, and has not failed yet! ( 192.88.212.44 ( talk) 08:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
The linguistic element of Latin courses offered in secondary schools and in universities is primarily geared toward an ability to translate Latin texts into modern languages, rather than using the language for the purpose of oral communication, as many modern concepts, such as those encountered in technology, have no accepted modern linguistic equivalents, and no formal organization for adopting new words. Thus the skills of reading and writing are heavily emphasized, while speaking and listening skills are de-emphasized (usually passively, through omission). This paragraph is essay material - it is entirely opinion - the editor's explanation - and lacks a reference. The rest of it relies heavily on links and therefore seems not to need special citations. Dave ( talk) 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This approach to learning the language assists speculative insight into how ancient authors spoke and incorporated sounds of the language stylistically; patterns in Latin poetry and literature can be difficult to identify without an understanding of the sounds of words. This is the editor's opinion of what living Latin does for you and I must say it seems too abstract to have any meaning. I can't read it with a college education. What is an understanding of the sounds of words? Do you mean, unsderstand what the sound means? But how can you use any language whatever without that understanding? If that is what it means there is no need to say it: "you can't understand Latin without knowing what the sounds mean" is not an encyclopedic statement. Come up with some verified opinions of credible persons or don't bother; we already know 2 + 2 = 4. Dave ( talk) 04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Of the Romance languages, Italian is the most conservative descendant of Latin in terms of vocabulary, [1] and Sardinian is the most conservative in terms of phonology. [2]
What's wrong with this paragraph? Well, as prelude, statements such as these have been contentious for decades if not centuries. Some say Spanish is closer, some say Italian, other single out some of the minor Romance languages, etc etc. What, has the issue suddenly been settled by Wikipedia unknown to the rest of us? Don't get your hopes up. Ethnologue is supposed to have made the first assertion. However, it fails the Internet test - Ethnologue is on Internet, you know. If Grimes made any such statement, there is no page number, no url, no quote, nothing to lead us to what the editor actually read. This statement is improperly referenced and that reference is totally useless. So, it is in effect unreferenced. Even if it were referenced, there is no statement denoting the fact that this would be the author's opinion and that opinion is one of many. Now, for the second statement. All right, the editor gives a good reference citing one example of how a sound lost in Latin has survived in Sardinian. Good work. But, let's look at the conclusion: Sardinian is the most conservative in terms of phonology. Where does the source say that? Conserving many archaic features does not equal the most conservative in terms of phonology. So in fact the big conclusion is unreferenced and the reference references something else unstated. I don't know what to do with it so I took it out. If something goes back in, we need: 1) a disclaimer pointing out the contoversial nature of such statement and identifiers of personal opinions of the authors 2) a little expansion giving a few opinions. Dave ( talk) 13:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In the 9th or 8th century BC, the Italic languages were brought to the Italian peninsula by migrating tribes, and the dialect spoken in Latium around the River Tiber, where Roman civilization would develop, evolved into Latin.
I removed this sentence because it is totally unsubstantiated. Over the decades and centuries there have been a good many theories of how the Italics got to Italy. In fact, as far as Italian prehistory is concerned, it is and has been a major issue. No theories and no authotities are cited here. This is nothing you can guess at off the top of your head. You need some authorities. As far as the tribes migrating in the 8th or 9th century is concerned, the probability of that being true is quite low. See under Latial culture. The immediate ancestors of the historical tribes must long since have been in place, though the exact forms of their languages remain a mystery. If you could prove something definitive on that topic you would have a tough time deciding which offer from a famous university you wanted to accept. So, I replaced this sentence. As I am not presenting a theory no ref is required. Dave ( talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
and this survival was reinforced by the adoption of Latin by the Catholic Church. In this milieu, it survived as a mother tongue at least into the second millennium A.D. and is referred to as Medieval Latin.
This is what I call history by guess and seems to be especially characteristic of Wikipedia, where sophomores are perpetually fluttering out of the nest. Better not to guess, better to have nothing than something guessed, which is nearly always wrong. As for the fluttering, well, flutterers should expect to fall. If you should get right we would call it prophecy, but never fear, there are no prophets around here. Why should the church adopt Latin when it was already speaking Latin? It started doing the rites in Latin when everyone spoke Latin and never stopped. The issue was whether it should switch to the vernacular not whether it should adopt Latin. And I got no idea what you mean by surviving as the mother tongue. Mother of what? Where? What would you mean by surviving not as the mother tongue? In this milieu? Does that mean it was spoken only in the church? Or was there some other milieu? What is milieu in this context anyway? Never guess, do the work, don't try to be smart, be truthful instead. Dave ( talk) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This section seems unclear to me. Especially the fourth paragraph. The paragraph starts by telling us that modern Romance languages have been used to reconstruct Vulgar Latin. What follows that, however, doesn't explain at all how they relate to stress.
``For example, the Romance languages have distinctive stress on certain syllables, whereas Latin had this feature in addition to distinctive length of vowels.
True, but so what? Latin has the feature (sic) of distinctive stress on certain syllables? Even if true (though I thought Latin was quantity sensitive, and so stress was NON-distinctive) it doesn't tell us anything about how modern languages inherited a putative Vulgar Latin stress system.
The paragraph continues:
``In Italian and Sardo logudorese, there is distinctive length of consonants as well as stress; in Spanish and Portuguese, only distinctive stress; while in French length (for most speakers) and stress are no longer distinctive. Another major distinction between Romance and Latin is that all Romance languages, excluding Romanian, have lost grammatical case[3].
This is all nice, but it is totally unclear (to me at least) how this helps reconstruct Vulgar Latin. By the last sentence, I am led to understand that the paragraph is just about differences between Latin and Modern Romance. A real wreck. Its a shame too because Vulgar Latin is fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.136 ( talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why 'excluding Romanian' has been removed from the text covering the loss of grammatic case in romance languages. Do we have a Limba Romana hater out there? Romanian clearly exhibits grammatical case in its noun morphology. Om (man) becomes omului in the genative and dative...Am dat bani omului - I gave money to the man. In other words, don't delete 'excluding Romanian' unless you are fluent in Romanian and can explain how it does not have grammatical case on this talk page. The ref for this paragraph is a broken link, by the way..looking for a new source. If you find one that says no modern romance languages have grammatical case - its bad info. Limba Româna e marfa! Cmhood ( talk) 23:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Good? How did this ever get to be a good article? As its bad quality was something of an impediment to further work I wanted to do, I gave it a heavy edit, which I just finished. That is not to say everything wrong with it has been fixed or that it could not be improved. Vale. Dave ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently created a WikiProject Latin, designed to cover Latin language literature, poets, writters, historians, images etc. and I was hoping someone could join. We currently have three members. The link is here: WikiProject Latin. 95jb14 ( talk) 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC), Elected First Member of the Project.
Please review WP:Good article criteria before nominating an article for GA. This article is clearly deficient in all three main criteria. It has almost no references, and vast sections go completely unsourced. While the history content is good, it is significantly lacking in every other section, Although the information is somewhat covered in the subarticles, the main article should use WP:Summary style. It also needs thorough copyediting; some errors I quickly noticed are the use of first person and choppy sentences. Although this is a big task, I encourage you to work on expanding and referencing the article to eventually be of GA quality. After starting off, I suggest taking it to WP:PR. Reywas92 Talk 23:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the discussion on the merger of the numerals article with this article. I would have liked to see some initial statement by the editor who placed the template. No matter, thank you for making the suggestion. Let's consider it now. First, there is no article. As the template points out there is a good Wiktionary write-up - too good as I see it. That material belongs in a Wikipedia article, which means it must be REMOVED from Wiktionary. If it is not removed, then forget it, there is no basis for a merger. Merge with what? There is nothing to merge with. All we need is a Wiktionary reference. Second, as to whether there is room for that material in this article, there definitely IS NOT. So we are talking about creating a new numerals article and referencing it from a numeral section here. Does everyone understand that? Opinions? Dave ( talk) 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed numerals are covered under Latin declension. I propose we take this merger request out of here and put it under Latin declension. Dave ( talk) 10:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The article has been deleted, you can still see the history though, I have preserved the text on my talk page. This was hardly an article and was more like a text book summary, it should be noted taht the user has also created an article that is up for deletion. 95jb14 ( talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC).
You are not currently logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.233.94.20 ( talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked this over carefully to see what could be placed in the main article. The main article is somewhat more technical linguistically and is quite long already. I think this section in this article is better off here really. It represents a simpler overview of the topic and could go in the other article as a first section entitled "Overview", "Summary" or some such thing but really from the point of view of level is better here as an introduction to the main. That is what I think anyway; it is not the case of duplicated material but of an introductory level and a technical level. Dave ( talk) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We have this period outline in three or four articles; not this exactly, but ones like it. I puzzled over this every which way and finally concluded that some such outline really does belong here as an introduction. So I left what there is. It does not duplicate the other articles but introduces the material of the main articles. I went with the material already in place, as it seems good, so some parts of the outline are short and some long. The fact that much of this was written as introductions makes it difficult to offload from it - but maybe the the technical grammar parts will be conveniently offloadable. Dave ( talk) 05:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The articles states: "Latin languages such as Catalan, French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish are descended from Greek Language"
Although it is true that those languages contain a lot of Greek influences, they descend from Latin (Lingua Latina) not Greek, I am taking the freedom of fixing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.133.251 ( talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Two things about the native name given here - lingua lătīna. First, it would look clearer without the breve and the macron. There is an IPA transcription, which shows what vowel is short and what is long. A reader who is not acquainted with the ways of marking long and short vowels in a Latin text may assume that the diacritical signs are obligatory. And second, doesn't Latin capitalise names of languages? Vicipaedia contains articles such as la:Lingua Latina, la:Lingua Anglica, la:Lingua Francogallica, la:Lingua Casmirica, etc. -- 62.204.152.181 ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)