Jump to content

Talk:List of Latin abbreviations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Pointed out a thing that need thinging
Line 68: Line 68:




== Unnecessary Sentence ==
== Unnecessary sentence ==


See entry for ibid.:
See entry for ibid.:

Revision as of 20:19, 9 May 2011

WikiProject iconLatin List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Formatting & stet

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

-Vessels42 23:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stet is used extensively in proofreading. WLD 18:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The sections should be reformated into three groups:

Common Less Common Out of Date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.6.206 (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Usage?

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

--Maybe make a chart?

Per procura?

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

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

Does anybody know more? Tom Hope

My knowledge of Latin is minimal, but my Latin dictionary lists:
procuro 1
a)to take care of, attend to, look after, administer (as an agent or procurator);
b)to expiate
That means the only form written as procura would be the present active imperative singular, which, as you say doesn't make a great deal of sense. I would agree with you that p.p. is an abbreviation of per procurationem, and the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you also.
Incidentally, pp is also used to mean 'pages' as in "See reference 1, pp 3-7". Is this also a Latin abbreviation? If so, I can't, as yet, find a reference. - WLD 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sq

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


My three cents

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

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

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

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

I suggest something like the following:

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

vs versus vs.

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

New chart

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


Unnecessary sentence

See entry for ibid.:


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


The sentence above, in bold, is an orphan, as well as obvious and unnecessary. I'd argue that "It" (ibid.) should not be confused with 'any' abbreviation if possible. One would think this goes without saying. Additionally, I can't imagine a reason to warn, specifically, against ibidem with abbreviations that contain some of the same letters as it.

One may perhaps more sensibly say that ibidem and idem are often confused with one another due to their structural similarities, but that's a claim that would require sourcing, and, again, its inclusion seems rather unhelpful.

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