Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:birotula. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:birotula, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:birotula in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:birotula you have here. The definition of the word Talk:birotula will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:birotula, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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:
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)Reply
@Catsidhe: Is the Vatican site searchable? Is the identity of specific authors ascertainable (to demonstrate "independence")? Are the documents dated? DCDuringTALK13:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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. DCDuringTALK13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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. —CodeCat14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. —CodeCat14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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. —CodeCat16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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. DCDuringTALK16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds17:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
