![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In principle I agree that this article should be moved to the Wiktionary. However, the way it has been done now we would lose the interesting and relevant discussion below on the spelling with or without a period, along with all other discussions.
Moreover, it is transwikied to Viz but should be merged with the lower-case viz. including the period.
Therefore, I'm removing the prod tag. As soon as the issues above get fixed I think we should prod it again. -- EnOreg ( talk) 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph says 'viz.' is often used to begin lists. It also says 'viz.' is not appropriate for introducing examples. What might be in this list if not examples? 199.89.175.12 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Ventifact
Someone ought to tell the British press... [2]. -- bodnotbod 23:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what symbols you guys are looking at, but the Tironian note for "et" is something that resembles a 7, sometimes with a bar through it. Another symbol (but not a Tironian note) for "et" is of course our own ampersand, &, and both these symbols can occur anywhere in a word which contains the letters "et". The words "videlicet" and "scilicet" (but not "licet" on its own) are abbreviated with a different sign, which might not be a Tironian note, I forget. This one is basically just a squiggle and can look like anything, but often looks like a z, 3, sideways m, a yogh, etc. It's the same symbol that is normally used to abbreviate the dative and ablative plural ending "-ibus". I may be misremembering some things here, but the symbol for "et" and the symbol for "licet" are definitely not the same. Adam Bishop 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm befuddled by the usage advocated in this article. All dictionaries that I've checked always show viz. with the period. While the extra period may be historically redundant, omitting it does not count as proper usage. Moreover, I don't see where this article adds anything to the lists of Latin phrases and Latin abbreviations. It should probably be merged into those articles. Rcharman 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The article claims that "viz" is read aloud as "namely", not "viz". I marked this "citation needed" because I don't think I believe it. I for one would always read it as "viz". Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
According to this document there is another spelling: 'vizt.' There are some old words there that may be useful to add to Wiktionary too.
Someone should put the transwiki tag up to put this on Wiktionary (I don't know it off hand and am too lazy to look it up). - Nathan J. Yoder 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't doing that imply this article gets deleted? I looked at Template:Transwiki and it indicated that. As of now, it's nothing more than a dictionary entry, so it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. I don't know what the standard procedure is, especially considering it says you need to have moved the history, which I can't do, plus it already exists so I guess you'd have to merge manually. I've never seen a dictionary exclude something simply because it's archaic--they simply mark it as such. Nathan J. Yoder 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it this weekend probably. As for archaic words, Wikipedia isn't paper, so it's a moot point. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right place to criticize an historic text. Therefore, I remove the following sentence about the Benjamin Franklin quote:
It smacks of POV and certainly isn't encyclopedic. -- EnOreg ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article reads:
"Though both forms survive in many modern languages, viz. is far more common in English than videlicet. "
Can you please name a few of those modern languages that use such forms? -- 201.69.46.111 ( talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wahrmund, what did you mean that there is no evidence that it is classical? Did you mean videlicet, or viz? Videlicet is certainly classical; see Lewis and Short for example. Adam Bishop ( talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I learned in college that the latin pronuncitation should sound like "wi duh lick it", the first sound is like "wi" in "win"; not sure how to write this in the phonetic symbols. Does anyone else agree with that pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlv12 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The section says "although it is not related to either". I would like to see the explanation of where it did come from, but I am not qualified. Are there any classics experts that can elaborate on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlv12 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was always taught (and I don't have Fowler's to hand at work) that one shouldn't use a period after viz, as the z / ʒ substitutes for a "terminal flourish" indicating the abbreviation.
If I can source a reference for this, should we not move the article to Viz and have Viz. redirect there? — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 12:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The eighth edition of Black's (quoting from Garner) suggests that ss. is not an abbreviation for scilicet:
"Many possible etymologies have been suggested for this mysterious abbreviation. One is that it signifies scilicet (= namely, to wit), which is usually abbreviated sc. or scil. Another is that ss. represents ‘[t]he two gold letters at the ends of the chain of office or “collar” worn by the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench ....’ Max Radin, Law Dictionary 327 (1955). Mellinkoff suggests that the precise etymology is unknown: ‘Lawyers have been using ss for nine hundred years and still are not sure what it means.’ David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law 296 (1963). In fact, though, it is a flourish deriving from the Year Books — an equivalent of the paragraph mark: ‘¶ .’ Hence Lord Hardwicke's statement that ss. is nothing more than a division mark. See Jodderrell v. Cowell, 95 Eng. Rep. 222, 222 (K.B. 1737) .... An early formbook writer incorporated it into his forms, and ever since it has been mindlessly perpetuated by one generation after another."
Perhaps that last sentence ("In legal usage...") should be deleted. 67.251.27.172 ( talk) 08:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I can say that in my years of legal training § has always meant "section," and I have never seen an instance of it being used to mean "scilicet." However, I believe I found the text from which that sentence is directly lifted and Princeton is often a reliable source. Perhaps this is referencing an historical legal usage of ss? The link: < https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Viz..html>
Is there an accepted convention for using one over the other, or can they be considered synonyms? i.e. (= id est) is usually translated as "that is" while viz (=vidicelit) stands for "namely", "that is to say" or "as follows". So, what gives? 128.2.226.136 ( talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the scribal abbreviation corrputed to z was "3-like" or "Ȝ-like". Based on this image, I suspect it is the same abbreviation that is identified as "7-like" in Scribal_abbreviation#Marks_with_independent_meaning. -- dab (𒁳) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Three issues; one is that the article says "The glyph ⁊ for "and" is the only other Tironian abbreviation remaining in use." Other than what?? This is not stated anywhere.
So far as the full stop after it is concerned, modern day British usage is to omit the full stop after any abbreviation unless that would render it ambiguous with a normal word. Could US contributors state whether that is also true in the US?
Finally it is commonplace to pronouce it as spelt, especially if reading out a newspaper article to someone else, for example. In the 1960s this was done with a whimsical smile, but nowadays in the UK it is regarded as standard practice. Afterbrunel ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've know notaries to think the abbreviation "ss." meant "put your SSN here". 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 05:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So viz. is NOT scilicet so why is redirected? Further, there is no examples for scilicet or Ss., so the logic of the redirection is not right... other than to eliminate a small "low-importance" article. Consci ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In principle I agree that this article should be moved to the Wiktionary. However, the way it has been done now we would lose the interesting and relevant discussion below on the spelling with or without a period, along with all other discussions.
Moreover, it is transwikied to Viz but should be merged with the lower-case viz. including the period.
Therefore, I'm removing the prod tag. As soon as the issues above get fixed I think we should prod it again. -- EnOreg ( talk) 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph says 'viz.' is often used to begin lists. It also says 'viz.' is not appropriate for introducing examples. What might be in this list if not examples? 199.89.175.12 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Ventifact
Someone ought to tell the British press... [2]. -- bodnotbod 23:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what symbols you guys are looking at, but the Tironian note for "et" is something that resembles a 7, sometimes with a bar through it. Another symbol (but not a Tironian note) for "et" is of course our own ampersand, &, and both these symbols can occur anywhere in a word which contains the letters "et". The words "videlicet" and "scilicet" (but not "licet" on its own) are abbreviated with a different sign, which might not be a Tironian note, I forget. This one is basically just a squiggle and can look like anything, but often looks like a z, 3, sideways m, a yogh, etc. It's the same symbol that is normally used to abbreviate the dative and ablative plural ending "-ibus". I may be misremembering some things here, but the symbol for "et" and the symbol for "licet" are definitely not the same. Adam Bishop 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm befuddled by the usage advocated in this article. All dictionaries that I've checked always show viz. with the period. While the extra period may be historically redundant, omitting it does not count as proper usage. Moreover, I don't see where this article adds anything to the lists of Latin phrases and Latin abbreviations. It should probably be merged into those articles. Rcharman 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The article claims that "viz" is read aloud as "namely", not "viz". I marked this "citation needed" because I don't think I believe it. I for one would always read it as "viz". Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
According to this document there is another spelling: 'vizt.' There are some old words there that may be useful to add to Wiktionary too.
Someone should put the transwiki tag up to put this on Wiktionary (I don't know it off hand and am too lazy to look it up). - Nathan J. Yoder 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't doing that imply this article gets deleted? I looked at Template:Transwiki and it indicated that. As of now, it's nothing more than a dictionary entry, so it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. I don't know what the standard procedure is, especially considering it says you need to have moved the history, which I can't do, plus it already exists so I guess you'd have to merge manually. I've never seen a dictionary exclude something simply because it's archaic--they simply mark it as such. Nathan J. Yoder 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it this weekend probably. As for archaic words, Wikipedia isn't paper, so it's a moot point. - Nathan J. Yoder 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right place to criticize an historic text. Therefore, I remove the following sentence about the Benjamin Franklin quote:
It smacks of POV and certainly isn't encyclopedic. -- EnOreg ( talk) 03:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The article reads:
"Though both forms survive in many modern languages, viz. is far more common in English than videlicet. "
Can you please name a few of those modern languages that use such forms? -- 201.69.46.111 ( talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wahrmund, what did you mean that there is no evidence that it is classical? Did you mean videlicet, or viz? Videlicet is certainly classical; see Lewis and Short for example. Adam Bishop ( talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I learned in college that the latin pronuncitation should sound like "wi duh lick it", the first sound is like "wi" in "win"; not sure how to write this in the phonetic symbols. Does anyone else agree with that pronunciation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlv12 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The section says "although it is not related to either". I would like to see the explanation of where it did come from, but I am not qualified. Are there any classics experts that can elaborate on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlv12 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I was always taught (and I don't have Fowler's to hand at work) that one shouldn't use a period after viz, as the z / ʒ substitutes for a "terminal flourish" indicating the abbreviation.
If I can source a reference for this, should we not move the article to Viz and have Viz. redirect there? — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 12:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The eighth edition of Black's (quoting from Garner) suggests that ss. is not an abbreviation for scilicet:
"Many possible etymologies have been suggested for this mysterious abbreviation. One is that it signifies scilicet (= namely, to wit), which is usually abbreviated sc. or scil. Another is that ss. represents ‘[t]he two gold letters at the ends of the chain of office or “collar” worn by the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench ....’ Max Radin, Law Dictionary 327 (1955). Mellinkoff suggests that the precise etymology is unknown: ‘Lawyers have been using ss for nine hundred years and still are not sure what it means.’ David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law 296 (1963). In fact, though, it is a flourish deriving from the Year Books — an equivalent of the paragraph mark: ‘¶ .’ Hence Lord Hardwicke's statement that ss. is nothing more than a division mark. See Jodderrell v. Cowell, 95 Eng. Rep. 222, 222 (K.B. 1737) .... An early formbook writer incorporated it into his forms, and ever since it has been mindlessly perpetuated by one generation after another."
Perhaps that last sentence ("In legal usage...") should be deleted. 67.251.27.172 ( talk) 08:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I can say that in my years of legal training § has always meant "section," and I have never seen an instance of it being used to mean "scilicet." However, I believe I found the text from which that sentence is directly lifted and Princeton is often a reliable source. Perhaps this is referencing an historical legal usage of ss? The link: < https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Viz..html>
Is there an accepted convention for using one over the other, or can they be considered synonyms? i.e. (= id est) is usually translated as "that is" while viz (=vidicelit) stands for "namely", "that is to say" or "as follows". So, what gives? 128.2.226.136 ( talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that the scribal abbreviation corrputed to z was "3-like" or "Ȝ-like". Based on this image, I suspect it is the same abbreviation that is identified as "7-like" in Scribal_abbreviation#Marks_with_independent_meaning. -- dab (𒁳) 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Three issues; one is that the article says "The glyph ⁊ for "and" is the only other Tironian abbreviation remaining in use." Other than what?? This is not stated anywhere.
So far as the full stop after it is concerned, modern day British usage is to omit the full stop after any abbreviation unless that would render it ambiguous with a normal word. Could US contributors state whether that is also true in the US?
Finally it is commonplace to pronouce it as spelt, especially if reading out a newspaper article to someone else, for example. In the 1960s this was done with a whimsical smile, but nowadays in the UK it is regarded as standard practice. Afterbrunel ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've know notaries to think the abbreviation "ss." meant "put your SSN here". 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 05:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
So viz. is NOT scilicet so why is redirected? Further, there is no examples for scilicet or Ss., so the logic of the redirection is not right... other than to eliminate a small "low-importance" article. Consci ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)