Jump to content

Talk:Vive, viva, and vivat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romanian

[edit]

Isn't it trăiască in Romanian? --Error 29 June 2005 01:13 (UTC)

I understand that they are interchangable, but I'm not positive Sotakeit 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italian

[edit]

In Italian the opposite concept is abbreviated with a reversed W, not an M, and "morra" isn't italian (maybe ancient Italian, I don't know), "Let [...] die" is translated "muoia", but it's not used as an opposite concept of Viva, "Abbasso" ("Down with") is used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.8.250 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 March 2006

Spanish

[edit]

In Spanish, for plural subjects, it becomes vivan

So then would this mean that the root word for viva would be "vivar"? 71.112.5.94 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivir is the infinitive. Vivar is El Cid's home town. --Error 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, I just wasn't able to see how viva was conjugated from vivir, because although I've always known what it meant, I've really only learned the he lives or they live kind of stuff with vivo, vives, vive, vivimos, vivís, or viven. There must be something that I'm missing in the article since I don't see why viva is conjugated from vivir, or at least what form of vivir that viva is. Maybe I just need to get further in Spanish. 71.112.5.94 07:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Viva is the subjunctive form of vivir, which means that the -er/-ir ending is replaced with an -ar ending. 70.243.213.99 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In Portuguese "viva" is more heard than in Spanish. The infinitive is "viver" and its plural to a phrase such as the exemple would be "Vivam os reis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.11.17 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German

[edit]

German does not lack a similar term, using Hoch ("high"). I believe this is a short version of Hoch soll er/sie leben ("High should he/she live"). Johan Schimanski (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]

I made a correction to this article. Formerly, it incorrectly stated that these words were imperative mood, when they aren't. If they were imperative, they would be commands directed to a second person, meaning "You live!" as if to instruct the object to live. These are subjunctive expressions -- they convey the wish of the speaker that the second person would live (a long life). "May he live (long)" is a better understanding. --Tobor0 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Vive, viva, and vivat. Jenks24 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Vive, Viva → Long live – Apologies to any editor who has worked on this article, but it's one of the worst titles I think I've come across. Especially with the title-case capitalization, it suggests "Vive, viva" is its own phrase. And why omit "vivat"? I've suggested an English phrase that already redirects here, but I'm open to other options too. Vive and viva would be an improvement, as might Vive, viva, and vivat. Vive and viva are apparently out, as they're disambiguation pages; Vivat, Viva (word), and Vive (word) are available. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC) --BDD (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this article doesn't cover the English language term "long live". Vivat or [[[Vive, viva, and vivat]] would be fine by me, since this article also covers "vivat" which is the root form. The three term form should redirect if it isn't used as the title, as should all permutations of it. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although just 'Viva' should cover it, at least in English. Sayings are common starting with 'Viva', films have been named 'Viva' fill-in-the-blank, etc. But if it needs to stay 'Vive, Viva' then that at least contains the common recognized word Viva. Randy Kryn 23:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, Viva (word), or are you arguing for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? --BDD (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pick primary topic, but 'Vive' is also applicable. Maybe the name as is does cover the subject, although it looks awkward (maybe put 'Viva' first). As always, Viva Wikipedia! Randy Kryn 13:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what dialect of English you use. "Vive" is not uncommon in Canadian English, and due to the location of France, is also found in Britain. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose or Move to Vivat. I don't care for the existing title, but Long live strikes me as a silly title. Long live the King would be better, but not nearly broad enough for the article. It just can't stand alone in English. But it would be better as one word. I think that Viva is more familiar now, although a century ago Vive might have been. Neither is really primary. But we could choose the Latin Vivat as a compromise, since it's the source of both, and is used on its own as well. I count at least three editors posting so far who sound like they'd be okay with Vivat. Anyone else? P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with moving to "Vivat", because "Vivat" violates WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Khestwol (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, those both lead to the same recommendation. There's no need to list it twice. Secondly, it's a recommendation; a suggestion, not a rule. When there's a good reason to vary from it, such as a number of articles with similar titles, or no clear way to decide between alternatives, editors are free to choose another title. It's not a "violation" of anything to decide against using a particular title. Thirdly, as I just posted below, Vivat! is familiar from poetry, music, religion, and literature. These words have gone in cycles; in Victorian and Edwardian England Vivat! would have been familiar to many people who never heard Vive le roi! or similar phrases spoken in French. From the 1920's to the 1960's, vive was probably better known from its use in popular culture; and since the age of Elvis viva has probably been the best known. But all three should still be considered current, since each is still used to some extent, and vivat has the advantage of being both the root form and neutral. P Aculeius (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I've put so much thought into this, I've tried to remember the most recent use/coinage I know of each form in popular culture. The expression vive la différence is heard from time to time, but seems to have originated in 1924. I can't think of any specific examples of its use off the top of my head, although I'm sure I've heard it many times. Viva Las Vegas is the only use of that which stands out in my mind; that's 1964, and most subsequent uses in pop culture seem to be derivative of that specific instance. Vivat actually has the most recent use that comes to mind; it's used as a lyric in Cats (1981). I'm not claiming that you can't find more recent examples of each. Just that none of them is a word you hear every day, and all of them are words you could hear at any time, or in any order. Vive and viva are certainly repeated a lot more, but mainly due to those two expressions, which have become stereotyped, together with vive le roi! in historical dramas. P Aculeius (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could go with Viva, since that's the second-person imperative in Latin. Vivat is the third-person imperative, which is technically correct in both Latin and English, but you could use it in the second person as well, and that's where both of the familiar Romance language forms come from. But this'd mean changing the existing "Viva" page to "Viva (disambiguation)". Also acceptable. I do think that Vivat should be considered, since it's still familiar in English from poetic, musical, religious, and literary use, as well as being the root form for both vive and viva, which gives it neutrality. P Aculeius (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case Viva can stay at its location because we can move this article to "Viva (word)" "Viva (interjection)". I think "Viva" is the most familier form to modern English speakers and adding (word) (interjection) to it makes it unambiguous and makes the title precise. Khestwol (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible title might be "Viva!", with the exclamatory mark that will make it clear its about the interjection being borrowed into English from the Romance languages. Is this an acceptable option? Khestwol (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Technically it should probably be Viva..., since it's rarely used on its own, but I don't think that's a good option for an article title. I think that all three forms need to be in boldface in the lead, however, with whatever explanation seems appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Red Slash, is your support for "Viva" (a very ambiguous title!) or "Viva (interjection)"? Khestwol (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose Viva (interjection) per WP:NATURAL. Red Slash 03:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I think the interjection "viva/vive/vivat" is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Viva", that is why I favor a suitable parenthetical disambiguation. Otherwise, I would definitely agree with you to move this article to "Viva" if "viva/vive/vivat" was the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Viva". Khestwol (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vive,_viva,_and_vivat&oldid=1206854589"