Talk:Lingua ignota

	Constructed languages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed 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.Constructed languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languagesTemplate:WikiProject Constructed languagesconstructed language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think the nilzmaiz should read hilzmaiz. There are other typos consistent with rapid typing on [1] (such as stignmatum for stigmatum). dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hildegard" or "St. Hildegard"?

I'm not so sure she was ever made a saint... Anyone with access to a list of currently valid saints of various denominations? --Kaleissin 12:50:45, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

"No formal canonization has ever taken place, but her name is in the Roman Martyrology and her feast is celebrated in the Dioceses of Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Limburg, also in the Abbey of Solesmes, where a proper office is said." [2]

--Jim Henry | Talk 20:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that dab has just deleted the "St." again. Any particular reason, given the evidence of her veneration given in the Catholic Encyclopedia article cited above? Formal canonization processes don't go back all that far, after all; many saints from that period and earlier were canonized informally rather than via the modern process. I would say that her name appearing in the Roman Martyrology is probably sufficient. --Jim Henry 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, not that I care too much about it, but the discussion of this point is probably for theHildegard of Bingen article. "St." afaik means "formally canonized", or at least should, for the purposes of objectiveness. In general: No honorifics on Wikipedia. If we have "St. Hildegard" here, people will be equally free to add "PBUH" to every mention of Muhammad, "His Holiness" to any mention of Popes or Dalai Lamas, "Guru Swamiji" to any mention of Prabhupada or Sai Baba, etc.. I don't think we want to go there... dab (ᛏ) 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting the title Saint to formally canonised saints would exclude the Apostles, which would be silly. However, I'm not sure what the criterion is for calling someone a saint when the tradition of veneration predates the formal canonisation process. --PeteBleackley 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard is included in the Roman Martyrology, the Catholic Church's official list of recognized saints and beati. The requirement of a process of canonization at Rome was made general only under Pope Gregory IX (1227-41). And it was only in the seventeenth century that Pope Urban VIII forbade the public cult of any person not as yet beatified or canonized by the Church, except for those who were in possession of public cult for at least 100 years.

In short, Saint Hildegard is a recognized saint as much as Saint Patrick.

Lima 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the explanation in the Hildegard of Bingen article. She was beatified - and as such has a legitimate public cult and is included in the Martyrology - but attempts at canonisation failed four times. It is therefore not correct to describe her as a "recognised saint of the Roman Catholic Church" - wording I have now removed. Vilĉjo (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

glossary

here is another portion of the glossary I scraped off the internet, unfortunately without the original Latin/OHG translations:

Hoil ("head"),
Hochziz ("blindman"),
Pasizio ("leper"),
Ceril ("brain"),
Ornalziriz ("curly hair"),
Luzeia ("eye"),
Luzerealz ("eye-socket"),
Moniz ("mouth"),
Gulzia ("gullet"),
Laniscal ("breast"),
Tirziel ("loins"),
Scorinz ("heart"),
Tilzia ("womb"),
Manguiz ("excrement"),
Creueniz ("scrotum"),
Fragizlanz ("pudendum"),
Minscol ("ulcer"),
Razil ("poison"),
Cruniz ("leg"),
Funiz ("foot"),
Maluizia ("whore"),
Deiezio ("dwarf"),
Logizkal ("giant"),
Ornalzanzia ("hairband"),
Naczuon ("necklace"),
Rasinz ("veil"),
Ausiz ("hemlock"),
Galigiz ("cumin"),
Pigizia ("savory"),
Maschin ("valerian"),
Clanzga ("tansy"),
Nascuil ("deadly nightshade"),
Pazia ("henbane"),
Brumsil ("birthwort"),
Nozia ("screech owl"),
Ualueria ("bat"),
Luxzia ("butterfly"),
Zinzrinz ("winding staircase").

dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Hildegard uses the letters

ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPRSTUXZ

so these 21 letters are certainly in her alphabet. I doubt that she had the idea to use single letters for sc or ph, but I imagine that the two additional letters are Q and Y, so that Hildegard's 23 letters are equivalent to the 23 letters of the Latin alphabet (as it was from 100 BC to 1400 or so). It should be easy enough to identify them based on letter frequency, with a small corpus. The problem is that the corpus appears to be unpublished, so you'd have to get to see the Wiesbaden codex directly. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole codex scanned -> http://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set[zoom]=min&set[mets]=http%3A%2F%2Fdokumentserver.hlb-wiesbaden.de%2FHS_2%2Fmets17.xml Mushisan (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Undeciphered writing systems?

Since I saw an edit to add this category and a revert, I thought this should be discussed on the talk page. Clearly the language is partially deciphered, with the 1011-word glossary; likewise clearly, the language hasn't been fully understood, with the majority of the LI words in the text unknown. Was the text a representative sample, there would be perhaps 5000 words.

The real question, then, is whether there is value in listing it in that category. I tend to think that there is: a person might browse that category to find the language (perhaps not remembering the name), and a person looking for a different language might well be interested in this (overlap of interest). I can see the other side, though. Does anyone else have an opinion about this?

History

I don't understand. The deciphering refers not to the language, but to the litterae ignotae (a redirect to this article), which are an undeciphered writing system. Or if they have been deciphered, I don't know it, and would welcome a citation. I do not think it would make sense to treat the writing system in an independent article, no encyclopedia would separate its treatment of the litterae ignotae from that of the lingua ignota. dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my second edit comment was clear: "We don't categorize wikieditor's ignorance. (the article does'nt say that they aren't deciphered either)". Here goes the longer version: The utmost policy here is wikipedia:Verifiability. Now, please provide an opinion of a language expert who says that the writing system was not deciphered. You write: "if they have been deciphered, I don't know it". My point is that I don't care about what you don't know (I probably don't know more than you :-). Please write what you know. Now, again: what informed reasons do you have to believe that it is not deciphered? References please, and we are done with this point.

My second point is that if you add an article to a category, then the article text itself must substantiate such an inclusion. `'mikka (t) 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International auxlang?

Why is this classified as an international auxiliary language? That seems inaccurate. 2601:98A:4002:2140:8192:12D5:E695:90CD (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lingua Ignota. 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/20051110160747/http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_linguaignota.htm to http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_linguaignota.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: 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) 11:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"maler (sic)" for mater in Glossary section

Where you got this from?

There is no "maler" in the Wiesbaden Codex, but mat^r: https://hlbrm.digitale-sammlungen.hebis.de/handschriften-hlbrm/content/pageview/450555

The codex "Berlin, Staatsbibl., Ms. lat. qu. 674" — mater and moder: https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN654043922&PHYSID=PHYS_0125&DMDID=DMDLOG_0002

The publication of the list of Roth (1879) — mater again: https://archive.org/details/diealthochdeutsc03steiuoft/page/390/mode/2up?view=theater

And someone spreaded this mistake on all non-english-language editions of Wikipedia. ROR (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U vs V

There was no distinction between U and V at the time of Hildegard (for those who didn't know, Hildegard's alphabet confirms this), but since we have this distinction, shouldn't we

either always use only one of the two letters and state clearly that the pronunciation depends on the context,
or use the correct letter depending on how we would pronounce it? E.g., Zuvenz (instead of Zuuenz), Livionz, Diveliz, Valveria (instead of Ualueria), but also Urizoil (instead of Vrizoil)?

WalterTross (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]