Talk:Veni, vidi, vici/Archive 1

Mithradites

As far as i was aware, this quote was actually after the battle against son of Mithridates. Ceasar distroyed Mithridates army in just 4 hours. The battle would of not been remembered but after the battle, Ceasar stood at the top of the hill and said "Veni Vidi Vici"

Adam Doyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.124.184 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

;-) Well edited. Thank you.

Sorry if my entry was more work than worth.Please do not cuss on these things it is not nice!!!

No problem, that's what Wikipedia is for! Do you know how else this could be expanded? I'm sure it's used in many more situations, or misused even - I remember a sports reporter using the phrase to describe a basketball game, and he translated it as "they came", etc! Maybe we could add a bit about the grammar of the words, or something. Adam Bishop 08:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone should delete 2 of this page, Veni Vidi Vici and Vini vidi vici and redirect the deleted ones to the remaining one, which I think should be this one. I would, but dont have the time. say1988 22:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. They serve best as redirect pages.

EliasAlucard|Talk 03:23, 04 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't Terry Pratchett parody this phrase in one of his novels? I can't remember which one, but he was talking about all the different Latin phrases he could have used that begin with V. It was very funny.

Terry uses a lot of faux latin. I can't remember the Veni line, but I remember fabricati diem, pvnc! -- "Make my day, punk!" which is, itself, a reference to Dirty Harry, of course...

Variations

More popular, but unattributed variations:

• Veni Vidi Bibi (I came, I saw, I drank)
• Vidi Vici Veni Veni Veni!! (work it out...) --Slashme 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:WeniWidiWiki

User:WeniWidiWiki -- Zondor 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

It would be great to include the correct latin pronunciation. Anybody knows? I'm not sure if the vici part is prononced like the letters "VC" (as I think) or "Vitchee"... I'm sure it's not "v-eye-ch-eye"! Thanks!

It was pronounced "wee-kee", while "vee-chee" is a much, much later way to pronounce it. (Or, at least, this is what people guess is the "correct" pronunciation, as in how Julius Caesar himself and other early first-century BC Romans would have pronounced it, at least other members of Caesar's class and not the lower class, because the real answer is probably "who knows"). Adam Bishop 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading that the pronunciation was probably Weeni Weedi Weechi (with lots of hand gestures). For all sorts of reasons JC is the greatest figure in history - but with that coming out of his mouth, not so much.--shtove 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say Veni Vidi Vinci, and would write it as such, this since I looked up vinci and it was in the Dictionary as "easily gained" and vici wasn't included (See: http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=vinci&ending=)... 145.94.142.235 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you looked up words starting with "vinci-" and came up with "vincibilis" which means "easily gained" (the opposite of the English word "invincible"). "Vinci" itself means "to be conquered", so I don't know why you would write the phrase like that, it would just be wrong if you did. Adam Bishop 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, oke :-) My Latin is at a level that I can interpret some of it, but not much. Some people say the phrase and if what you say is true, than it is even funny when they mispronounce... 145.94.142.235 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In 'VERY archaic Latin it would have been rufly wey-nee wee-dee wee-ghee or /we.ni wi.di wi.gi/. Cæsar himself probably said it similar except the 'c' would have been pronounced like a 'k' instead of a hard 'g'. Modern pronunciation is rufly ven-ee vee-dee vee-chee.Cameron Nedland 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably more like 'oo-ey-ni, oo-ee-dee, oo-ee-kee'. The Latin 'v' was often pronounced as a full vowel, rather than a semi-consonant, especially in formal speech. Ninebucks 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Which one is correct?

I have seen other versions like "veni, vedi, veci" and "vini, vidi, vici." Which one is correct? Are they all identical in Latin or are they all acceptable?

The title of this article is the correct spelling. "Vini" means "of the wine" but "vedi" and "veci" are not words. Adam Bishop 17:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin more important?

Apart from the Category, there is not a single reference to Julius Ceasar making this quote. Isn't that where it got its fame from? :s — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the opening paragraph? Adam Bishop 13:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish wiki

I don't have an account on the Spanish wikipedia, and I don't know enough Spanish to say anything there, but recently their article has been moved to use the spelling "vinci", apparently under the assumption that that is the correct past particple of "vincere". Can anyone go there and fix it? Adam Bishop 07:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that is how the phrase is most frequently phrased in the Spanish-speaking world? Ninebucks 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would they phrase it like that? Adam Bishop 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi you all, I'm a member of the Spanish wikipedia and I can tell now that the article has changed to "veni, vidi, vici". Although, I've always wonder why in many sources appears "vici" as "vinci" including the book by Suetonius "The lives of the twelve Caesars", translation to spanish by Jaime Arnal (ISBN 84-7291-770-3), and I've seen the link to the english translation of this article but unfortunately the phrase per se does not appear. Maybe it is sometimes phrased as "vinci" because of the spanish word "vencer" wich means "to defeat", however I couldn´t find "vincere" in a latin dictionary, I found "vinco" wich means "to defeat, to win, winner" I would love to see the original "De duodecim Caesarum" and see how it appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.152.235 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Vinco" is the first-person present indicative of "vincere", which is how verbs are listed in a Latin dictionary. The perfect is "vici", never "vinci", so I don't know why this is the case in Spain. Suetonius says "Pontico triumpho inter pompae fercula trium verborum praetulit titulum VENI·VIDI·VICI non acta belli significantem sicut ceteris, sed celeriter confecti notam." online here Adam Bishop (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 190.19.152.235 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Mr. Star Minuta190.19.152.235 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)

Pop culture section

The pop culture section here was a monster, so I edited a few notable items into a semblance of prose, and moved the original list to a separate page where its deletion can be discussed properly. --Slashme 06:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding popular culture references AFD

I recommend that the pop culture reference list be severely pruned and a few items moved back to this article. When the phrase is used, as is, within the body of the text of a book, film, song, etc. then remove it from the list.

• What should be kept
  • Mottos - just start a section called Mottos and a straight list of organizations using it as a motto should be listed.
  • Historical uses - the two entries in the current political heading should be kept.
• Disambiguate - If this phrase is the title of a work (book, film, song, or other art) put it on a disambiguation page.
• Alterations - This could be where all the ways the phrase has been altered is listed.

I like trivia and pop culture a bit, but some of those items are just a bit much for me. I only found this through an invite to the WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. - LA @ 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I split off the section as a separate article to be discussed for deletion is that I don't think lists of modern uses of the phrase are in any way appropriate to this article. I would therefore not support adding lists of organisations using it as a motto or lists of alterations of the phrase to this article. Just my opinion, though. --Slashme 05:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It works fine as a stand-alone article. If you moved it back into this article, you'd have to severely prune it so as to keep it in balance with the non-pop content, but such a reduction wouldn't result in an improvement to the encyclopedia.

The ultimate value of "in popular culture" lists is to illustrate the cultural prominence of a subject. If not for that very prominence, the phrase itself would be non-notable. Pop-culture lists may seem like they were compiled by someone with OCD sometimes, but they give one a broader sense of the subject's significance.--Father Goose 07:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the discussion of the cultural uses of the term in the main article is enough to establish its notability, and an attempt at an exhaustive list is inappropriate to Wikipedia. But that's my opinion, which is just one atom of the molecule of consensus that we are attempting to build. --Slashme 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about the IPC section

I am confused; what criteria is being used to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a particular cultural reference of this term? Please let me know so I can be certain that these references are not just being removed as an arbitrary matter of personal distaste. Cheers, --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When a new example is added to the list, I ask myself "Will someone who didn't get that people are still using the sentence all the time, now understand the point?" Take for example the recent addition of the Hives and the Black Lips. Seeing as we already had Ja Rule and Alizee representing popular music, I couldn't see how this would help anybody's comprehension of the topic. All it does is to push the section back in the direction of a long pointless list. We've been there and the consensus is clear that it's a Bad Thing™. --Slashme (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This consensus you claim is clear does not exist.--Father Goose (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you trying to say that there is serious support for turning the section back into a long, pointless list? --Slashme (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, it looks like the only person who has been policing this list has been you; you were the one who forked the IPC section and then immediately put it as an AfD last month, and now, you are the only one who has been removing new content being added to the IPC section. To me, this looks like a consensus of 1. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then count me in, because these IPC lists are ridiculous and greatly decrease the quality of articles. I don't necessarily agree with what remains (Ja Rule over the Hives?) but it's better than before. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it sounds like we need to have a clear discussion about what determines a valid inclusion and what does not, because right now the list is completely arbitrary, and these arbitrary decisions are being reinforced by unexplained removal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

pronounciation ??

Who is that moron who pronounced this phrase in English? Vici is NOT pronounced viKi, except if the person saying it has a lisp or an impairment in his/her mouth (or brain). Please remove the viKi pronunciation, as a Latin phrase SOULD NEVER be pronounced in any other language! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.180.2 (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The hard "c" is used in the Classical Latin pronunciation. At least, that's how I was taught. --FF 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the problem? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it should not be a hard c, but a soft one like the "CH" in "CHerry". Adam, the problem is correct pronounciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.180.2 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

C is pronounced as K in Classical Latin. See Latin spelling and pronunciation. This is not contested. Iblardi (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. The "ch" sound is a medieval/church Latin pronunciation. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pledged

Does anybody know the latin translation for "pledged" - Veni, Vidi, _____.? I would really appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.117.33.135 (talk • contribs)

By that I suppose you are referring to fraternity or sorority pledges? If so, I have no idea. If you do find out what the right verb is, you might like to add it to wikt:pledge in the "translations" section.--Slashme (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spepondi" (from spondeo, spondere) would be the usual word, but that's kind of boring. Lucky for you, Latin has another word that fits perfectly: "vovi" (from voveo, vovere). (Some more trivia: it's not the most common word in Latin, but it is the root of the English words "vow" and "vote".) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great stuff! I have added them as translations for the verb in the English Wiktionary, but I see that Victionarium does not yet have them ;-) --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop cult

Can this generally silly section be cut or at least pruned? Marskell (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you'll see this is the remnants from a very long trivia section. This content was forked into Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture, which then got deleted in an AFD debate; see the last version of that article. I think the VVVIPC content is more valuable to the reader than this disjointed paragraph. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we split it out into a better-written and better-sourced IPC article? That really does strike me as the best option.--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the content that got deleted in the AFD debate was more valuable than what we have here. This "rather disjointed paragraph", as NickPenguin calls it, gives an overview of the major cases where the phrase occurs in popular culture, without going into a tedious recitation of trivia. I guess a proper investigation of the occurrence of the phrase since 47BC might warrant an article, and I wouldn't oppose that by any means. I would, however, oppose putting all that stuff back into this article, and would also oppose removing all mention and examples of the longevity and continuing popularity of the quotation from this article. --Slashme (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess a proper investigation of the occurrence of the phrase since 47BC might warrant an article, and I wouldn't oppose that by any means. How can this be true if you nominated the last VVVIPC article for deletion? Especially when you nominate it only minutes after you forked the content out of this article? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this discussion lately. To reply: The "in popular culture" article was by no means a proper investigation of anything. It was a laundry list of trivia. And as for nominating it for deletion, I figured that the closest thing to "due process" would be to strip out the trivia section (which is discouraged by policy) and then nominate it for deletion so that our impartial peers could discuss the issue properly. There was a clear consensus against putting it back into this article, and that's what I've been policing here. --Slashme (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking a stupid question, but what is wrong with a "laundry list of trivia" anyway? Some Wikipedia users, myself included, actually like such things. You don't like them, I do, how about leaving the content up for those of us that do think it has a place? Part of the joy of Wikipedia is that it hosts information that wouldn't be in other encyclopedias. A big list of VVVIPC (as a separate article) fits into that category. If we don't make a list such as that, who will? Parkingtigers (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one agree with you (as others will know by now). The principles I embrace happen to be two of the five laws of library science: every reader his or her book, and every book its reader. Articles that are not specifically a detriment to the encyclopedia (by being unverifiable, non-neutral, or unreadable), should be retained as long as they can be shown to have interested readers (though redundant content should be merged).--Father Goose (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "every reader his or her book" is a good principle. Let's look at what we have at the moment: A balanced article which gives the origin of the sentence, with some historical context, and an overview of the continuing popularity of the sentence in its original and some varied forms through the ages. Neither section is out of balance or proportion with the rest of the article. This version has a short historical introduction and a long, tedious, hardly organized recitation of references to the sentence in popular culture, which took up most of the article. The policy Wikipedia:SUMMARY suggests moving such sections to their own articles, which I did, and summarizing the content in the main article, which I did. I felt that the new article was awful and unencyclopedic, and I suggested it for deletion, for which there was sufficient consensus. If you feel that the content really deserves an article, re-create the article with more discussion of the topic, or as a list (of which Wikipedia has a good number, and for which there is precedent) and fight for it to be kept. However, there was clear consensus during the deletion debate that that content should not be merged back into this article. --Slashme (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with splitting out the "uses of the phrase" section, but not with subsequently deleting it. I did rework the article during its AfD -- organizing, expansion, sourcing, fact-checking -- as a fairly good-quality list article, but the AfD closure failed to take that into account. I do continue to advocate having VVVIPC as a separate article, linked to from this one -- and the lede of that rewritten article would work as a better summary of the subject than the melange that is presently being used in this article.

The attitude toward such lists of examples or uses often seems to be "this is useless", but it has its academic value -- William Safire, for instance, has a weekly column in which he traces the evolving usage of phrases. As long as the subjects are handled in a way that keeps each article focused on a coherent topic, the more detail we provide, the better Wikipedia is, IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't nominate the pop culture article for deletion again if you intend to work on it. What might make your case stronger at AFD would be to first resurrect the article as a subpage to your user page, invite everyone who feels strongly about it to join in and help, and get it up to a standard where it can survive an AFD vote, then upload it again. --Slashme (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Marlboro

Marlboro used to have "veni vedi veci" printed on the front of every pack of their cigarettes as part of the Phillip Morris logo which is also the seal of the British Royal Family.Could somebody find the old logo and post it and work it into the article? THANKYOU!

Well done to Father Goose for putting in the pack-shot: it's a nice illustration and we should get less people posting "It's on the Marlboro pack" now. --Slashme (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a nice addition, if I say so myself.--Father Goose (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation

VICI is more related to VICTORY than CONQUER... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.41.6 (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cassell has vinco as to conquer,overcome,defeat,subdue or vanquish.Any sources for where it is related more to victory for us?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.251.17 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 

Well, the past particple is "victus", which leads the agent noun "victor", and the abstract noun "victoria", and thus the English "victory" (although probably through French first). The verb "to conquer" can equally mean "to be victorious", so it's all the same really. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly

Why does the first sentence say "allegedly written"? I think it's accepted that he did write it because multiple reliable ancient sources confirm it. Reywas92^Talk 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Caesar writes about the battle in question and doesn't use the phrase. but writes "At such a victory, Caesar, though many times victorious, was filled with incredible joy, because he had finished a great war so quickly; and he was made the more joyful by the recollection of the peril in which he had suddenly been placed. An easy victory had befallen him in very difficult circumstances.". The phrase isn't mentioned until 150 years later, how is that evidence for him actually having written it? Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well "allegedly" is a very POV word. "Reportedly" is much better. Why don't you add this info to the article and expand it a bit? That would be much clearer. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit, perhaps I should put in dates for Plutarch and Suetonius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia again...

I removed the "trivia" tag: most of the notability of the article rests on the allusions that have continually been made to it since it was first used, so the section is relevant. I trimmed down the section again, though. It keeps growing like a lawn, but we don't need more than a few examples in each of the media where it occurs. --Slashme (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)