Talk:List of Latin phrases (C)

Latin Low‑importance

	This 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

dominium politicum et regale? (In Defense of Politics by Bernard Crick p.19) - Matt24 (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Quid quid latinea dictum est altum viditure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.115.125 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur", look at List of Latin phrases (P–R)#quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citato supra[edit]

Verwey & Overbeek (^{EVERT JOHANNES WILLEM VERWEY, JAN THEODOR GERARD OVERBEEK and K. VAN NES; Theory of the stability of lyophobic colloids. The interaction of sol particles having an electric double layer; Elsevier, New York; 1948; 205 pp.}) use "c.s." on page 188, and it seems to mean "citato supra", for which a few other instances come up in a web search. Can anyone confirm this? —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

template:section[edit]

By adding {{section}} template before the name in the table, it is then possible to point a redirect at the specific phrase. For example dolus specialis redirect so List of Latin phrases (C-E)#dolus specialis. The table entry for doulus specialis starts with "|{{section|doulus specialis}}doulus specialis||..." and as the template contents do not show in the table there is no apparent change to the text. --PBS (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more consistency within Wikipedia, it is recommended to use the frequently used template {{Anchor}} instead of the rarely used template "section". --Vigilius (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to such a recommendation, except for the one you inserted in Template:Section? That note ("should be avoided because it's rarely used") is disingenuous after you removed the template from about 100 articles, and doesn't give any rational reason.

{{Anchor}} carries a substantial performance penalty over {{Section}}; therefore, in lists like these which use them extensively, using the template Section is a good thing.

500 Section templates:
  Preprocessor node count: 3001/1000000
  Post-expand include size: 12000/2048000 bytes
  Template argument size: 2500/2048000 bytes
  Expensive parser function count: 0/500

500 Anchor templates:
  Preprocessor node count: 14001/1000000
  Post-expand include size: 24000/2048000 bytes
  Template argument size: 5000/2048000 bytes
  Expensive parser function count: 0/500

A better place for this discussion is probably at Template talk:Section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coram publico[edit]

Is covered in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Coram_publico#Coram at least. (I also note that de doesn't seem to interwiki here. Deliberate?) --Gwern (contribs) 07:10 10 August 2009 (GMT)

I have now added "coram publico" and a link to this page at de:Liste lateinischer Phrasen/C. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?[edit]

"Consequitur quodcunque petit" - a school motto - can anyone suggest?.86.42.217.129 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Salus[edit]

Was listed as "Salvation through harmony" when it is in fact closer to "Well-being through harmony," the root of the modern word salutary, to be of a beneficial nature, and "Salvation" coming "from Late Latin salvationem (nom. salvatio, a Church Latin translation of Gk. soteria), noun of action from salvare "to save."^[1]Jacob2342 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=salvation

Cogito Ergo Sum[edit]

The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (translated: "I think, therefore I am".) is here explained as a "rationalistic argument used by French philosopher René Descartes to attempt to prove his own existence." This is a common misconception/myth. Descartes' purpose was to prove the existence of the mind and that the mind and soul can coexist. Ergo, that science and religion can coexist. --Kanovski (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum[edit]

This phrase, which means "with the exclusive rights to print," was used in 17th century England as a copyright notice (ex. "Jimmy Wales, cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum" meant "Copyright © by Jimmy Wales"). It appears in Act 4 Scene 4 of The Taming of the Shrew. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charta pardonationis !?[edit]

The word pardonatio is not Latin. I refrained from correcting it because a few words on I read the correct "perdonatio", hence the original author may have chosen to use "pardonatio" in the phrase; and it may be that it was some Medieval phrase with originally faulty Latin. I'd love to read a reply to this, however. Pan Brerus (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Latin phrases (C). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b486V3JM6bcJ:www.augustinus.it/latino/trinita/trinita_14_libro.htm+%22Mens+eo+ipso+imago+Dei+est+quo+eius+capax+est%22&hl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20101213133008/http://augustinus.it/latino/trinita/trinita_14_libro.htm on http://www.augustinus.it/latino/trinita/trinita_14_libro.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Latin phrases (C). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please[edit]

please do not trash the literature with modern cartoon and comedy misfit quotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:401:AFD0:2C42:8BF6:BCCF:B5D4 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

profanity[edit]

"A medical euphemism for the doggy-style sexual position."

profanity (other than ancient) is not a welcome addition

whoever is "editor" needs to hand his position to someone else

this "moderator" is no longer "accredited" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:401:AFD0:2C42:8BF6:BCCF:B5D4 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=salvation

[1]