Talk:List of Latin abbreviations

Formatting & stet

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

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

stet is used extensively in proofreading. WLD 18:44, 13 May 2006 (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 "ect." 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).