Talk:birotula

RFV discussion: November 2013–March 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

birotula

birotula automataria

Latin words for "small bicycle" and "scooter". Mr. Granger (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I can picture the tunics flapping in the wind as Romans zipped by on their scooters. Haplogy (話) 04:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant my comment as a joke, not to troll. The community would benefit from some levity :) Haplogy (話) 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking cassocks flapping in the wind, and would not be surprised that the Vatican has a need to describe scooters in Latin. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 06:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And indeed, the references I've found point towards Latinitas and the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, being the Vatican dictionary for Latin terms for things which don't have Latin terms yet. Wherein is found:

motoretta birótula automatária

mountain bike bírota montāna

So these terms would appear to be official Latin words, insofar as the Vatican body which rules on such things has defined them to be. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 07:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

But we need usage from real documents, not entries in dictionaries. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WT:CFI actually says "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum." The one above isn't contemporaneous, it's well, well after the extinction of the Latin language. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Catsidhe: Is the Vatican site searchable? Is the identity of specific authors ascertainable (to demonstrate "independence")? Are the documents dated? DCDuring TALK 13:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This and, better, this ("gsearch") is a searchable archive of Vatican Latin documents since 1909 that have apparently been published in print as well. The Vatican library is the ideal type of a durable print archive. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• This search yields 10 pdf documents that contain birota. I didn't find birotula using the same search. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If the language is extinct, how can it continue to be used as the official language of the Vatican? That seems like a clear contradiction to me. I would say that birota is a clear example of Latin as it is used today. Think of it this way: if we find lots of citations of this word, are we still going to argue it doesn't exist because "Latin is extinct"? That's just silly and seems like putting the cart before the horse. A language is extinct because there are no modern-day attestations, not the other way around. —CodeCat 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a clear contradiction. Superficially clear perhaps. If a language is dead when it has no native speakers, Latin has been dead for centuries. In the same way that if two people have a conversation in Etruscan and record it get it published, Etruscan doesn't magically become a living language again. Also as you say 'official' language, officialness doesn't tell you anything about usage. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Our CFI don't say anything about this either. So far we've taken "use" to mean "productive use" and not "receptive use". So the CFI doesn't require there to be any readers, only writers. —CodeCat 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you actually disputing here? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the usage is valid, but whether it's covered by exemption from the three-citation rule. My understanding is that modern usage needs to be cited as a modern language, not by the standards of the ancient, dead language. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is modern Latin an LDL? I'd say it is. It's certainly studied and taught a lot, it's hardly used at all in modern works. I wouldn't be surprised if Irish is used more than Latin is, and Irish is an LDL. —CodeCat 16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Did our vote on the matter properly allow for the possibility of zombie languages, dead in the sense of no native speakers, but in actual working use? The durably archived, searchable corpus seems to be not huge, but capable of providing three cites for some comtemporary Latin vocabulary, like birota, but not for other terms, such as those under challenge here. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• First of all: there is preexisting consensus that says that words from extinct languages like Latin that are coined in the modern age must have three independent uses. There still seems to be confusion over this issue, and we can have a vote or something if you'd like, but that's my stance and that's what the community agreed to.
• More to the point, I actually gathered cites, with the following result: birotula is cited, but birotula automataria is a bit more troublesome. I haven't actually added the cites but I found two in Latinitas and Harrius Potter, meaning it needs just one more cite — but I can't find any more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  I would like to see what makes you think there is such consensus; I don't trust your memory on that. Furthermore, Contemporary Latin (1900-present) is not listed at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion/Well_documented_languages, and thus is an LDL. If Contemporary Latin is not considered an extinct language (which makes some sense), the following part of Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations part applies to it: "For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements: ...". If, on the contrary, Contemporary Latin is considered extinct and not living, then contemporaneous quotations for it are from years 1900-present, by definition of the Latin phase, and the following part applies: "For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. ...". For a list of phases of Latin collected from Wikipedia, see Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation_of_extinct_languages_2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

birotula RFV-passed, birotula automataria RFV-failed. I share the view expressed by Chuck in his comment of 15:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC) and Metaknowledge in his comment of 17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC) that modern Latin needs to be cited thrice (and there weren't any citations in birotula automataria). - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)