Talk:ibid.

versus id
In scholarly legal work (and perhaps other disciplines), the distinction is often made between id and ibid as follows: Id., (Latin, short for "idem" and "eadem", "the same") refers to another page in the previous citation.

Ibid., (Latin, short for "ibidem", meaning "the same place") refers to the exact same location in the previous citation.

Example:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 120 (1973).

Id. at 122. (not Ibid. at 122)

but,

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 120 (1973).

Ibid. (not Id.)

Id. at 122. (now referring to a different pin cite than the first citation)

Ibid. (if you were to cite again to 122)

On the other hand, some citation authorities have dropped this distinction altogether.

RFM discussion: November 2020–April 2022

 * ibid. is entered as English, while ibidem only as Latin. It is easily found in Latin texts and other languages, it should be Latin or Translingual. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * sic – I do not accept this as English, Dutch, French, Portuguese. Why would sic be as English as sick? Its use is restricted to certain contexts, which suggests its not being English just like the abbreviations employed for apothecary use are not English.
 * etc. – merge all sections into translingual, or some troll will execute the idea of creating fifty other individual language sections so we have a Lua memory error from the midriff of the page.
 * et alii, et alia, et aliae, et alios, et alibi, et passim, et seq., et seqq., et cetera, ad loc., vel sim. – this is entered as English, but the fact that it is even declined shows it is Latin or translingual. I parallely move to delete these phrases because they are SOP, even as English, since we even have in addition to seqq., seq. and so on which should also be moved. I make only the first motion for s.v., v.s. and s.p. – absurdly this is presented as English while s.n. is entered as Latin. And v. a. is “epigraphy, obsolete” – how English is that?
 * brevic. – breviculum is not created, but the natural assumption is that it is Latin and not English. If I search “the breviculum” I only get results for particular books. This demonstrates well how people bad at foreign languages try to sneak in foreign words as English without duly assessing the language; for the translingual nature of terms not using a standard format like taxa and anatomical terms have is only apperceived when actually checking many languages.

Anticipating a popular argumentation that XYZ cannot be Latin because it is used by people who do not know a sod of Latin, I note that I have already disproven this line of argumentation at concerning de gustibus non est disputandum (which the undersigned links both as the discussion in the former page tend to by archived at the talk pages of the individual entries), namely expounding that the objective lexicographic nature of terms cannot depend on the incidental language proficiencies of their users, their expectations about the language proficiencies of their recipients, or the language proficiencies of their recipients. I also note that such couldn’t exclude the categorization as translingual, I have not stated a preference of whether one should move to Latin or translingual. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, because:
 * forms like English (no dot),  (no space),  (no dot and no space), and  (doesn't make sense as abbreviation of vidēlicet or vidēre licet which doesn't contain a z; and isn't shown to be really used in Latin or multiple other languages than English)
 * pronunciation, such as // as /ˌaɪˈiː/ or like that is
 * Lua memory error is no argument for doing something that might be wrong
 * For German, dots and spaces are prescribed like (Duden) or  (Duden), albeit   and   can be found as well. Reasons why the proscribed forms are used, can be: it saves spaces and space; z.[smaller space and never a line break]B. which is more fitting can't be typed easily. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On viz. for videlicet (and scz. for scilicet), the two abbreviations are often used in Latin since the Renaissance. The z stems from the Tironian 'et'. 36.70.209.83 08:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vininn126 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep etc., i.e., e.g., and viz. as English and several other languages for basically the same reasons as About Translingual. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fay Freak "they are SOP, even as English, since we even have et in addition to seqq., seq. and so on"
 * The English and translingual senses at et all seem unrelated. Am I missing something? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 07:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are, some has been deleted. Fay Freak (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

and its abbreviation v.s. This is Italian or translingual. As I understand the intended use of such terms is in note sheets which do not even contain linguistic content. There are a lot of similar terms missing from Wiktionary by the way if somebody is interested in music and wants to expand, and there may be other terms already entered but likewise under the wrong language. Fay Freak (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, because of WT:About Translingual. --幽霊四 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that e.g., i.e. and viz. are generally not pronounced as English shows they are not English and should be moved to translingual. (These exact abbreviations are also used in Latin, amongst other languages.) One could imagine these terms to redirect to their pronunciations by a template, literally like in Pahlavi or cuneiform (what’s Category:Translingual logograms for? there is only one translingual entry in it as I am speaking), but I see no reason why they couldn’t be translingual terms in the stead of any individual language entry. Having them as English is just motivated by the natural bias of monolingual English speakers. The entries v.g. (and alternative forms) and vid. I am not well acquainted with are probably like cases. Fay Freak (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with most of these, although a case can be made for some. In my opinion, when a word enters the spoken language with a pronunciation adapted to that language, it can be considered a borrowed word. I think you either betray the fact that you're not a native English speaker or we are familiar with different varieties of English. I hear "e.g." and "i.e." pronounced all the time (as /iˈd͡ʒi/ and /aɪˈi/ respectively). And "etc." is most certainly English and French, etc. People use it all the time in speech, pronunciation varies by language (no one tries to use a more "correct" pronunciation and say /et ˈkeː.te.ra/), and it can be translated into different languages. For instance, German uses instead. To say that it is Translingual is also extremely Euro-centric, because I doubt many African or Native American or Asian languages use it. Just take a look at the translation section....
 * I'm more open to moving the other terms, but I also hesitate to label words "Translingual" when they are only used in certain languages that happen to all be related.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How recent is the phenomenon of pronouncing these abbreviations though? I know about these spelling pronunciations (!), but how much do we have to imagine thereof in the colloquials of various classes in say late 19th-century English, I mean when people were more into natural language and less bookish? In total it seems that it has been more often spelt abbreviated than pronounced so, and that the pronunciation as written is an exception. And in November 2020 everything is an exception and unnatural; it will become unclear how much we can rely on the current language.
 * I have begun, of course, merely with one argument for the translingual nature of these abbreviations. One may deem them translingual for various other considerations. The “nativized pronunciation” arguments always seem weak to me, since people just pronounce anything in native accents, including undisputably translingual terms like Rubus idaeus. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re “translingual terms like Rubus idaeus”: for example of pronunciations of a translingual term, see . J3133 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I like that approach, but it doesn't seem widely accepted. DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Was there a vote that Translingual is to be read as Panlingual? I thought that use in multiple (as a practical matter more than, say, five) languages made something Translingual. Since Roman script is "Eurocentric", does that mean nothing in Latin script can't be Translingual (excepting taxonomic names, of course)? Similarly for CJKV characters. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you'd say "generally not pronounced ... shows they are not English". I have said "ie" and "eg" for decades now, with no difficulties making myself understood. In fact, I'm surprised that some entries say things like "Usually read out as namely, to wit, or occasionally videlicet. Otherwise pronounced as follows: IPA(key): /vɪz/" Of course, that some entries do invalidates the tag someone put on viz. and 21 others, showing they didn't really consult the entries? Slapping the tag on 22 entries at once seems more like enthusiasm than understanding. Anyway, perhaps this again demonstrates there are multiple Englishes, as in academic English? Shenme (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the tags (because Fay Freak did not) which is customary for discussions of entries and does not mean it was done enthusiastically or with agreement. J3133 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for the explanation. It _was_ confusing. Shenme (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They are pronounced as English (by English speakers). The letters "I E" etc. Equinox ◑ 08:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First place, "the objective lexicographic nature of terms cannot depend on the incidental language proficiencies of their users, their expectations about the language proficiencies of their recipients, or the language proficiencies of their recipients" is silly. We label words as English because they're used by English speakers to communicate with English speakers. Why is sick English? Because English speakers use it to other English speakers. Why isn't it Middle English code-switching? Or take kobold (German code switching) or bonsai (Japanese), if you feel like special casing Middle English for English. In any case, once you've tossed aside the languages spoken by the speakers or understood by the listeners, I don't think you have anything at all, much less anything objective.
 * Certainly a multiword phrase that's typically italicized doesn't say much about words used universally by English speakers and pronounced as English. When you start tossing out i.e. and sic, I wonder how much of anything would end up as English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * “Sick” is English because it is considered English by the doxa. Otherwise your definition is circular, because you would have to define first what an English speaker is. The question is as broad as being about which view is pivotal to a language assignment. My argument is that it must be decided from a learned view what language something is and the naïve view of a monolingual is not enough to distinguish what pertains to a language. He lacks the overview to know whether something is translingual or his language only. Particularly if it turns out that for example the German view does not consider sic German but translingual – I never heard those alleged pronunciations on de:sic in speech just to say –, it is a contradiction if there is also an English section, so the view must be an universal one, abstracted from the typical beliefs of an individual language’s speakers. To say nothing about the fact that the convenience by which non-linguists decide what language something be is even a political one, so terms are declared “Croatian” and “Montenegrin” and the like while seen from above they must be Serbo-Croatian. Fay Freak (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An English speaker is a speaker of the language most characteristically associated with England, hence English. Alternately you could use a reference speaker--e.g. Queen Elizabeth II--and declare them an English speaker, and the language they speak in and write in to be English.
 * No, it is not a contradiction if the Germans consider something translingual and the English consider part of English. There's no reason for the view to be universal. This is a categorization, not a fact, and it is a categorization set up so we don't have to produce mostly duplicate entries for a large number of languages. 17 is certainly English, but it does us little good to add that, especially given the hundreds or thousands of languages that use 17. Words like Homo habilis have a weird relation to languages, as they are created to be translingual. On the other hand, there are seven languages at sic, with three more (Latin, Scots and Serbo-Croatian) that use it in different ways; even looking at the translation box, there are seven languages that use sic in the supposed translingual meaning, all western European, with Slavic languages using variants of tak. (tomato, on the other hand, has eight entries in the same sense as English, with three of them in completely non-Indo European languages.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point it seems pretty obvious the merger isn't going to happen. None of the pages are anywhere NEAR a lua memory error, and even if they were, we have other solutions, and the general concensus seems to be that it's better to keep this information split off into multiple languages. I'm going to go ahead and mark this as Closed, and will remove the attention templates later, if no one ends up disagreeing with me (aside from Fay Freak). Vininn126 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)