lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Du Fu

message: Gratias ago Neandro et Iacobo de eorum laboris emendationis et vicificationis. But my one quibble is with the change from eius to suus. These pronouns all refer to Du Fu, of course, but he is not the grammatical subject of the sentences, and from what I have seen that should be the primary consideration. Now Gildersleeve does say that suus is frequently used in reference to the "actual" subject of the sentence in a dative construction like "suos rex reginae placet", but I don't think that is the case here. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:27, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would comment, but I can't find where this change was made. Over-use of suus is a common fault on Vicipaedia, and I think you should feel free to change back. [Added later: I am perhaps disqualified from commenting, in any case, because I don't understand Gildersleeve's example.]

text: Iacobus, after working though the text, changed the Latinitas to -1. He didn't explain why. It seems as if he must be criticising himself, and, if so, unfairly, so I have reverted this change. By all means explain, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Maximi momenti est, utrum Du Fu an narrator describatur opinionem dicens (aut cogitans) in hac commentatione. Quoniam a narratore hic de Du Fu verba fiunt, non est, cur pronominibus reflexivis utamur. Itaque tibi, Lesges, Andreae consilium secuto tua verba restituere licet. Neander (disputatio) 16:50, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Restitui. (Andrew, with Gildersleeve you may have been confused, as I was, by his use of "suos", which is not suōs pl., but suŏs sing.; I suppose he had some manuscriptal reason for choosing this spelling. So it's "suus rex reginae placet" = "every queen likes her king", a use of suus despite the fact that the referent reginae is not the grammatical subject.) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:06, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thank you, that was exactly my problem. Well, now that I understand it, I only hope it's true :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De pronominibus possessivis 

message: Commentationem admiro, sententia praefationis ultima excepta. Est nimis officiosus -- et inutilis -- Du Fu cum decem vel duodecim poetas valde inter se differentes assimilare. Tales assimilationes fere omnes oportet delere, dico ego. Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita quidem, Anglicum convertens hanc sententiam aliquantum stultam censui. Rescribere conatus sum; quid nunc censetis? Lesgles (disputatio) 01:55, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime. Pro certo inter poetas praecipuos enumerandus est. Sed apud vicipaediam Anglicam, si res una hoc modo ab uno editore inseritur (e.g. ... nescio quid ... comparatio cum Horatio) editores alii statim omnes tales res addere volunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 25 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De aemulatione poetarum
Disputatio:Ponticulus

message: Tales pontes non re vera sunt caelestes. An locutionem meliorem invenire possumus? "Pons aedificiorum"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pons caelestis" spire et paulum poetice sonat, et "pons aedificium" rationis. At si "pons aedificiorum" bene sit consentio. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:21, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :Recte dicis! Fortasse alius quis locutionem eodem tempore poeticam et rationalem reperire potest ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Vocabulo Francogallico haec res passerelle significatur. Passerelle autem secundum Henrici Goetzer Nouveau dictionnaire français-latin Latine ponticulus dicitur. Caelestis non altitudinis sed potius divinitatis ideam complectitur; itaque parum aptum videtur.  Meà quidem sententià haec res ponticulus elevatus est. ¶ Ceterum, Donatello, credisne Venetianos ponticulum suum nomine Anglico appellare? Neander (disputatio) 18:59, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Non Donatello sed Angli (Wikipediani) has res confundunt. Verba inaudita, difformia, barbara :en:Skyway et :en:Pedway laete accipiunt. O tempora! O mores!
replies: text: :::: Reapse in galleria positam indicavi imaginem, nexu (adhuc rubro) "Bridge of Sighs" praeditam. Neander (disputatio) 20:04, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::A! Non intellegi. Rubricam nunc emendavi ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:00, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

text: :::Si Donatelloni placet, ad "ponticulus" movebo. Omnes enim pontes elevati sunt, sed alii (e.g. in urbe Kuala Lumpur) elevatiores.  An pelliculam Sean Connery iam vidistis, in qua SC et Catharina Zeta-Jones sub hoc ponticulo elevatissimo pendebant? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Si "ponticulus" habendus est, consentio. Bene facte nomini latino Bridge of Sights. :) Ista pellicula fortasse vidi... -- Donatello (disputatio) 02:37, 26 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  Neologismus
Disputatio:Donaldus Trump

message: The name of an organization he founded, if "Attractiones Amoenae Oblectationis Trump", sounds something like "pleasant seductions of Trump enjoyment". Luckily, I think, we don't translate names of companies :) So the English name could be inserted instead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removi 

message: Salve usores carae carique, sententia "Famosus est proditu parietam munivere contra immigrantes mexicanos" verisimile lacessens - saltem in loco primo. Itaque in alterum locum propositurum esse propono ... Andreas Raether (disputatio) 23:31, 22 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleamusne? Est ego qui eam sententiam possuit. Sed non ponderosa sit, videtur.Tibi?--Jondel (disputatio) 08:26, 23 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Salve Jondel, sententiam tuam non delendam esse arbitror, quoniam D. Trump profecto parietem talem constitutam iri in animo suo habet. Iam enim historia. Nos quod homines fecerunt in sententias ponemus. Simul Vicipaedia et tu et ego et nos esse destinatarios frustrationis historia causa non possunt. Ut supra scripsi, sententiam tuam in partem alteram (per exemplum: == Biographia politica == sive al.) probo. Gratias, Jondel, et vale. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:32, 23 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Salve Andreas. Non malum est in parte separatim poneatur, mihi. Sed sententia coniungitur ad praecedentem sententiam cum candidatus sit Trump ad praesidium. Etiam partem  'Biographia politica ' satis augendam sit. Cum materia satis sit ad partem, igitur fors transferamus. Potissimum, in alterum locum ponamus ne lacessat. Tibi? Id est,mexicani, praecipue offendiuntur ab haec sententia.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:16, 23 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

text: Licet. Fortasse hic scribas quando textus ponandus sit. Iste situs, credo, operam comportabit. Vale, Jondel. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:31, 24 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sententiae lacassentis unius propositio
Disputatio:Platea ad theatrum La Scala

message: Salve. Quamquam nomen italianum nunc adhibemus, censeo nomen latinum in parenthesibus monstrari possumus ita eius significatio lectores intellegent. Bene est? At infeliciter nescio quid significat. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:50, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Ita, Donatello, pro certo bene erit, sed interpretatio difficile est. Platea nomen habet a theatro, quod nomen habet ab ecclesia deleta, quae agnomen habuit a Regina Scaligera. Possumus fortasse versionem "Platea Scaligerana" in parenthesibus praebere: si ea verba ponimus, necesse erit hanc historiam in notam subiungere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 24 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Belem de Para

message: Mihi videtur nomina Latina huius commentationis ficta esse. Censeo nomina Latina huius urbis fuisse antea "Para", recentius "Belem de Para": dioecesis est "Belemensis de Para" et patrona est Sancta Maria de Belem (=Bethlehem), sed ex his verbis nomen Latinum non evenit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 26 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen?
Disputatio:Provincia Alpes Litus Lazuli

message: What's the reasoning behind the singular Alp here? And do we need to include Côte d'Azur (Litus Caeruleus? Costa Azzuri?)? Lesgles (disputatio) 05:17, 3 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At least "Provincia" is OK :) I think I devised these regional names and the answer to your question is that I can't really remember now. Well, on the analogy of Lapis Lazuli it would be Litus Lazuli ... Anyway, if you want to propose a better name for the region, I'd be the last to stand in your way.

text: Notice that another Vicipaedian feels that we should call these "provinciae", not "regiones". I feel there's something in this argument: regio was not an administrative term in classical Latin. Notice that a third Vicipaedian put almost-empty infoboxes on the région pages and then went away. Quite a lot of improvement needed, in fact ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 3 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Perhaps then Provincia-Alpes-Litus Lazuli? I'm ambivalent about regio vs. provincia. Regio has the advantage of distinguishing the régions from the anciennes provinces, and there actually does seem to be some precedent for an administrative use (L&S, under β and γ). But provincia does seem to be the more natural term. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:11, 3 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I see these hyphens as a feature rather specific to French. Many other languages don't do it, and I don't recall seeing such hyphenated compound names in Latin. So I would have said "Provincia, Alpes, Litus Lazuli" or "Provincia, Alpes et Litus Lazuli". But maybe that's just me, and you think the hyphens work OK. I wouldn't object to the form you suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sounds good. I went with your first suggestion, since I have been wary about using one et with three items after seeing this note about its rarity in Gildersleeve. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:16, 5 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Briarcliff Manor

message: Thanks for the new page. We don't turn names like this into Latin unless we have a source. If there is a source please cite it in a footnote or mention it here. If there's no source to cite, the page is likelty to move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 4 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be continually adding to it, with numerous reliable sources. Ɱ (disputatio) 17:39, 4 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sounds good! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 4 Martii 2014 (UTC)
We still lack a source for the Latin name. If there isn't one, we should move to Briarcliff Manor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 25 Martii 2014 (UTC)

text: Paginam movi. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:08, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Alsatia

message: Forma Alsatia communior in fere omnibus fontibus videtur. Confer, e.g.  et . Suadeo igitur pagina ad "Alsatia" moveatur. Quid censetis? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:11, 8 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 9 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Michael Foale

message: It's true, he is a Ph.D. But it's a confusing term: I mean, I'm one of those too. Neither I nor Michael Foale need ever have studied philosophy. We just got doctorates, and that's what a doctorate is usually called in Britain. More useful (I think) to say where he studied (and of course what he studied -- astrophysics -- you have mentioned that already). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 13 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. :) I was not sure if doctor philosophiae was totaly correct in Latin. So we say doctor in contexts like this? And then we have medicus for those who heal beings. -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:38, 14 Martii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  Doctor philosophiae
Disputatio:Planeta terrestris

message: Greetings. Concerning the name "terrestrial planet" in Latin:
Terra and tellus means both "soil/earth", and the adjective of terra, terrestris, "which has to do with soil/earth". Lapis, "stone", and the adjective lapideus, "of stone". I would say that terra and tellus does not mean "land" nor "ground", but we know for certain that terra and tellus is also used for the English concept of "land". "I stand on land", in terra/tellure sto, litteraly "on soil/earth I stand".
So a planet with a solid surface; it does not really sound okey as planeta terrestris, "planet which has to do with soil". Planeta lapideus, "stoneplanet", litteraly "planet of stone", sound better.
If we can find a source for "terrestrial planet" in Latin it would be good, but as i said, planeta terrestris does not really sound okey.
Donatello (disputatio) 04:01, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: I can't find any such phrase in a  Latin source. If we are making history here, it seems a little daring to go with the Swedish "stenplanet" or the English "rocky planet" (which is not the usual term in English) when so many other languages use a word like "terrestrial" or "telluric". We have several options there, terrestris, terrenus, terreus, telluster (that's a nice one). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Planetae terrestres? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:34, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::<<philosophers denote their “terrestrial planets” (Planetas Terrestres)>> ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:42, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well spotted, Iacobe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Those philosophers knew nothing of what we now call "terrestrial planets", but I think they have given us an acceptable phrase. Would you go along with that, Donatello? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and source
Disputatio:Hancheum

message: ... that this page was much too short and needs extending, but surely what it needed was more text? We shouldn't put so many different names and pronunciations in the first sentence. Those, I guess, can go into a footnote -- or a section "De nomine", if we have one of those. Second point: we wouldn't normally have a picture gallery, unless for a special reason: Vicipaedia isn't a picture gallery. And, third point (sorry), I think those montages of unexplained pictures (like the one now at the top right) are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. They are not even identified, so the reader can't learn anything from them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree ... 

message: is the official romanization system for all languages using the Latin alphabet. That's not to say it's standard for historical Latin (obviously) or Finnish radio or the Vatican (dunno), but 't'ain't "popular" ner "common" neither. LlywelynII
replies: text: It depends what you mean! To say "vulgo" in Latin is approximately to say "in the common language" in English. In China the nationwide common language is standard Chinese, so, in our first sentence, that simple word will be logically followed by the standard Chinese name of the city, which may be written in Chinese characters or in pinyin (and we will aim to supply both). Finns and cardinals aren't really relevant to all that, but botanists are relevant: they distinguish Latin from "common" names in just this way, and by "common" they mean the relevant standard modern language, which is what we mean too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinyin
Disputatio:Horatius Cocles

message: Quia nomen Coclitis ut solitum est hominem uno oculo caecum natum significat, in pagina ipsa delevi Horatium "alio proelio" alterum oculum amisisse. Cuius rei cui testimonium praesto est, id quaeso addat. - Bavarese (disputatio) 23:23, 15 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio de fonte latinae nam in wikipedia anglice, est comma "had lost an eye in a previous battle (hence his agnomen "Cocles"). ".--Jondel (disputatio) 11:52, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haec res, ut videtur, e libro 1779 De viris illustribus urbis Romae demitur; fons est haud fidelis. De ratione vera, cur Horatius hoc cognomen habuerit, nihil dicit Smith, qui fontes suos curiose citat. Quo dicto, de sensu verbi "Cocles" nescio an recte distinguis, mi Bavarese. Si in Plauto fidem reponis, quomodo scis personam Plautianam res veras dicere? Varro, nisi fallor, explicationem nullam dat. An alii fontes sunt?

text: :Possumus, si certitudo a nobis fugit, rationem delere et glossam (e.g. "monoculus") inserere. Quid dicitis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quae de sensu verbi Cocles scripsi, non apud Plautum lego, sed reperio in Georges, Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch s. v. Cocles fontibus additis (sc. Ennius apud Varr. ling. Lat. 7,71; Plin. nat. hist. 11,150); iisdemque fontibus - sit venia verbi: - nititur Der Kleine Pauly s. v. Cocles. Equidem ego Varronis Lingua Latina non sum usus. - Bavarese (disputatio) 23:26, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)
Ex ABBATIS LHOMOND, DE VIRIS ILLVSTRIBVS VRBIS ROMAE
'Horatius Cocles, illo cognomine quod in alio proelio oculum amiserat.' .--Jondel (disputatio) 19:27, 18 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quo tempore Horatius caecus fuit?
Disputatio:Viridarium

message: Greetings. The ancient Romans did not have parks, but they had gardens for houses wich they called hortus. So how would "park" be called in modern Latin? I like the name viridarium. It tells well what a park can be; in a logically way and and in a way of feelings. But unfortunately this name has no source. The name horti and maybe lesser horti publici might work a little for "park", but might not fit perfectly.
Please add sources with names if you can. :)
Donatello (disputatio) 14:59, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Viridarium (with variant spellings) is fine: you can find references in . The gloss given there is "a plantation of trees, a pleasure-garden". That's a park. Formal-ish gardens in a city like Rome, open to the public, were called "horti". A "paradisus" would be wilder, more like a hunting park (or safari park, I guess). Adam and Eve first lived in God's safari park, but, as we know, he turned them out. 15:12, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Park" in Latin
Disputatio:Archibaldus MacLeish

message: the "Spoken Wikipedia" template, which produces the category "Paginae audibiles", because it seemed to be misleading. The link was to an English reading, not a Latin one. If so, wasn't that treason? If there was in fact a reading in Latin to listen to, then, my mistake and please reinstate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 22 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: I took out ...
Disputatio:Universitas Tiphlisensis

message: Hi, I have a question, which is correct Triphelis Universitas Publica or Universitas Nationalis Triphelis ?--Giorgi Balakhadze (disputatio) 12:35, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an official source for the Latin name, we go with the source.

text: If not, "Triphelis Universitas Publica" (as seen on en:wiki) is a bad name: the word order is wrong. Our name "Universitas Nationalis Triphelis" is a little better, but not very good: "Nationalis" is not an exact translation for "State", and the name of the city wants checking. I am trying to verify the city name right now, but it isn't easy ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, both are wrong. I have found a short official name now and will move our page to the correct name. It contains no word corresponding to "State": maybe someone will find a longer official form, including such a word: that would be better still. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)

message: Moving page to a new name Universitas Tphilisensis according to university source--Giorgi Balakhadze (disputatio) 17:58, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The web page you cite is not available today, but I see the emblem you have uploaded at en:wiki. It looks OK, but I would like to feel sure that there is no error: the earlier source gives "Tiphlisensis" and that adjective is well established in Latin. This one could be a conscious decision by a Latinist at the University, or it could be a misspelling by a non-Latinist. We'll wait and see ...

text: Meanwhile, you were wrong to remove the other name from the page: it was well-sourced and good Latin. I will restore it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universitas Tphilisensis
Disputatio:Virgo immaculata

message: Verba Graeca Latinaque pro certo nobis relevant, aut plena, aut fortasse versibus selectis in textu nostro citatis. Quomodo apud Vicipaediam Latinam verba plena in linguis aliis variis relevant, non intellego. Utile erit fortasse versiones enumerare, sed non verbatim citare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicificanda
Disputatio:Lingua Paniabica

message: Si "Penjabica" (vide citationem) est verbum Latinum, sine dubio "Panjabica" taliter. Igitur (Sacreum mihi in  mentem ponit) nobis oportet, more Vicipaediae, "Paniabica" scribere. An recte dixi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 27 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some taxonomic attestations for panjabicus and also penjabicus, though the most are for punjabicus, doubtless because of English influence. I agree that if it has a Latin ending, we might as well stick with our "i, not j" convention. But using g is also an option: Hofmann calls the region Pengabum (also Lahoria). And here's a source for Pengabensis ditio. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:22, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Does Panjábi imply a nominative Panjabu(m,s)? In any case (sic!), it would seem to support lingua Panjabica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:42, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I can't access that page, but I think the answer is that unluckily it doesn't imply such a nominative: it is probably a feminine nominative singular itself.

text: ::It certainly does confirm that for accuracy we should prefer two as, Paniabica, rather than the other choices of vowel, given that our sources allow us this choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 13 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::For reference, here's the poem that Iacobus cited:
replies: text: ::::INSCRIPTION ON A STICK PRESENTED TO MY FATHER.
replies: text: :::::Indica me genuit spissis Himalaiia silvis:

text: :::::Transi Panjábi flumina quinque soli:

text: :::::Kashmíri novi, Peshórique, ultima regna;

text: :::::Quae colet Ægyptus, quæ loca dives Arabs:

text: :::::Nunc adsum prope te: tua nunc vestigia servo,

text: :::::Præsidium dextræ, care, fidele tuæ.

text: ::::On board Home-going ship, 1851.

text: :::Lesgles (disputatio) 14:01, 14 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Ah, well, it is a genitive, then. Since I can't open the book, and the accent makes the word look Indic, I didn't know that Iacobus was citing a piece of Latin. (Google Books full texts, if younger than 150 years, can't be read in Europe. The book can also be found on the Internet Archive, which is available world wide, but it's a multiple volume work and I didn't know where to start looking.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 14 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthographia
Disputatio:Kinkaku-ji

message: Salve. Infeliciter nescio anglicae arson latine est. Itaque "incendium homicidii" scribebam. -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:30, 28 Martii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Nunc intellego. "Commit arson" est "aedificium (etc.) consulto inflammare"; nihil commune habet cum homicidio nisi quod interdum homines in talibus incendiis interficiuntur. An quis incendio huius templi mortuus sit, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 28 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incendium homicidii
Disputatio Categoriae:Ferriviae metropolitanae

message: Movere propono ad "Categoria:Ferriviae metropolitanae" (nomen plurale quod etiam comprehenderit ferrivias urbanas aut partim subterraneas, aut omnino apertas). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 29 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mota. --UV (disputatio) 21:51, 4 Decembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine