Acadēmīa:Criteria for inclusion
This page lists the criteria by which new vocabulary is added to the Acadēmīa from existing sources. For the criteria for the creation of neologisms, see Acadēmīa:Suggestions by Acadēmīa
From which eras?
At present, we want to concentrate on recording non-classical vocabulary, i.e., primarily documenting Latin used after 395 AD and finding appropriate words for it, if necessary. This is not to say that classical vocabulary does not belong in the Acadēmīa or that we will never change focus. This decision was made only to make better use of our limited capacity.
Classical vocabulary is welcome to be added, but should not be prioritized.
Order of entries
Individual entries are not sorted arbitrarily, but according to the order in which the reader should see them. Naturally, the order is subjective and depends on the author's liking. Nevertheless, some criteria should be provided here, according to which words should be preferred. Vocabularies are preferred if they fulfill at least one of the following things:
- The word appears in a relevant descriptive dictionary.
- The word appears in a relevant Latin text.
- The word is used in an official Latin document of a country or organisation (in most cases texts by the Catholic Church/Holy See/Vatican).
- The word has cognates in one or (preferably) several Romance languages
On the other hand, the words, if they are worth listing at all, should rather get a lower place, if it fulfills one of the following things:
- The word is not a proper vocabulary, but rather an elaborate paraphrase.
- The word could be understood by non-Latin speakers worse than other synonyms.
- The word has nothing in common with any translation into a Romance language.
Relevant sources
Whether a source is relevant must be decided on a case-by-case basis. The following criteria therefore offer only indications and are not exhaustive.
Printed text sources
Printed text sources are considered relevant if they have been published by a publisher. Especially works from the medieval age or Renaissance Latin/Humanism are to be prefered.
Online source
Online sources are relevant if
- they are the digitalization of a relevant text source
- from a Wiki run by the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. Wikipedia)
Useful sources
Here are listed sources that are used several times in Acadēmīa and are considered especially good. The list will be continuosly updated. If you need new templates, ask in Schola.
Dictionaries/Lexica
- Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press
- One of the most-popular lexigraphical works in English.
- Cite with
{{R:L&S|ENTRY}}
- Morgan-Owens Neo-Latin Lexicon, Patrick M. Owens, visited on {{{2}}}
- a widely used Neo-Latin lexicon.
- Cite with
{{R:Morgan|ENTRY}}
- Carolus Egger." (1998) Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, Urbe Vaticana: Libraria Editoria Vaticana
- Official dictionary published by the Vatican. But beware: Some words are more paraphrases than real words.
- Cite with
{{R:LRS|ENTRY}}
- Du Cange, et. al. (1887) Glossarium mediæ et infimæ latinitatis, Niort, L. Favre
- A great source for Medieval Latin.
- Cite with
{{R:Cange|ENTRY}}
- Pons, Pons Langenscheidt GmbH
- Online dictionary in German that contains some Neo-Latin words.
- Cite with
{{R:Pons|ENTRY|DATE}}
- Wiktionary, Wikimedia Foundation
- Online dictionary, sister project of Wikipedia
- Cite with
{{R:WT-EN|ENTRY|DATE}}
- Vicionarium, Wikimedia Foundation
- Online dictionary, sister project of Wikipedia; in Latin.
- Cite with
{{R:WT-LA|ENTRY|DATE}}
Grammars
- Raphael Kühner. (1868-1879) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache Band I, Hannover
- This german work is to this day one of the most comprehensive works regarding morphology.
- Cite with
{{C:K&S|I|PARAPGRAPH}}
- Raphael Kühner. (1912-1914) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache Band I, Hannover, ed. Holzweissig und Stegmann
- Volume two of one of the greatest works about Latin grammar ever written.
- Cite with
{{C:K&S|II|PARAPGRAPH}}