Talk:List of Latin phrases (E)

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.

Languages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles

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.

exempli gratia

Shouldn't e.g. just be listed once as exempli gratia _(e.g.) instead of having BOTH exempli gratia AND e.g.? This would 1) make it more succinct instead of having two listings for the same phrase, and 2) fit more in line with the style of other such acronyms/abbreviatsions (e.g. i.e. which only has the listing as id est _(i.e.)). It just seems rather pointless to have both entries since they mean the same thing (because they are the same thing). Pyrotics (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

id est

("I have lots of favorite colors; i.e., I can't decide on just one").

That's a terrible use of i.e. The second clause isn't explanatory, it is a consequence. Need a better example.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

et al.

It is said that "alii is actually masculine, so it can be used for men, or groups of men and women;", while Wiktionnary seems to say that alii is only for men (or boys) and that alios is the correct form for a group of men and women. So? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.249.182 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Et alii is a masculine nominative plural, understood to be gender-inclusive in English usage; if one wanted to emphasise that those others are all female, et aliae could be used (cf. alumni / alumnae). The Wiktionary entry at Wikt:et al. is less confusing than the one at Wikt:et alii which is where the accusative Wikt:et alios is mentioned unnecessarily. Et alios has no application, except in cases similar to "he gave the speech to Mr X, Mr Y, et alios" if a pedantic English speaker wanted to apply the Latin masculine accusative plural to an English object of only males. In short, one can't go wrong with "et al." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ex offo

In Austria there is the Latin Phrase "ex offo" in governmental use, with a meaning close to "ex officio". See also sk:Ex offo, cz:Ex Offo. Can anyone confirm and then add this phrase? --RScheiber (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase seems to be a particular Central European usage and is not mentioned at Ex officio member or its equivalent German article, de:von Amts wegen, so it doesn't seem to be noteworthy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ex animo

Ex animo should be literally translated as "from my soul". Animo, the second declension dative singular of animus. Heart would be ex corde. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Latin phrases (E). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819104313/http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/language-usage.html to http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/language-usage.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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]

Linking to Wiktionary

Hey @Metaknowledge:, how or should Wiktionary be linked to entries in this list? I think this page would be helped by linking Wiktionary. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the entry

Hi,

is there any consensus, or Wikipedia policy, on the scope of this entry? Should it cover Latin phrases that are still in use (in any language) or just Latin phrases that are still used in English? Or maybe Latin phrases that have been used in English at any point in time? Note that this does make a difference: I recently added the phrase ex abrupto, for instance, but my edit was reverted. The user who made the revert assumed the list would only cover phrases used in English, and ex abrupto doesn't seem to be; but it's definitely used in Italian, and probably in French. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion. If there are no other responses, feel free to put back. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, saw that addition of ex abrupto and I was a bit dubious because it seems rather trivial. A quick web search showed several entries in English dictionaries, so I let it stay. To be sure, it seems to have more currency in French and Italian, and in English scholarly texts, but that should'nt preclude its inclusion in an English encyclopedia. I suggest to restore the entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split Exempli gratia into its own article?

I've drawn up a draft for Exempli gratia as its own article since the entry is so long and it has a massive footnote. In the process though, I've been wondering if it's actually substantial enough to stand alone, plus I've noticed some problems, like possibly missing citations and possible original research. Though to be fair, I haven't read all the references (there's 18 of them). If anyone has any opinions, reply here, or if anyone would like to take the draft and run with it, by all means.

Speaking of that, is there a way to fork/branch a draft so that we can have multiple different ones at the same time? Maybe use a subpage? or add a number to the end of the title?

— W.andrea (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it didn't already have it's own article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a dedicated article would be a welcome addition and relieve this list of much verbiage.

I'm not aware of any history of forked/split/branched drafts. Maybe wider input could be generated by publicising the draft in some project(s). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]