lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Agmen Sanctum

message: Sancta cumpania or agmen sanctum would be better, I think, because etymology (of one out of many terms) in this case does not help. --Alex1011 01:02, 6 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added those, but remember that Güestia, Güéspeda, Estadea, Hoste aut Estantigua all come from hostes hostis antiquus (hostes > hueste > güeste).--Xaverius 10:58, 6 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

message: The form "Güestia" is in asturian language, not in galician or spanish as the text of the article shows (Hispanice et Gallaice: Santa Compaña, vel Güestia, Güéspeda, Estadea, Hoste, vel Estantigua; Vasconice: konpaini sandua). Other denomination in asturian is "bona xente" (good people).--Etienfr 15:48, 6 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Asturian denomination reference
Disputatio:Exafroplacentalia

message: Placentalia (Eutheria):
Afrotheria+Exafroplacentalia?
Xenarthra+Epitheria?
Atlantogenata+Boreoeutheria?
replies: text: What do you exactly mean? It's difficult unless you actually write things down--Xaverius 16:15, 6 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

message: I have moved this back to its original title. If anyone can justify the title with the equal sign, let him. Pantocrator 03:58, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anybody do that? It's not in the lemma. ;) IacobusAmor 04:51, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Iurum humanorum declaratio universalis

message: Universalis de iure hominum declaratio
replies: text: Universalis de jure hominum declaratio according to http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Universalis_de_jure_hominum_declaratio, but it seems to me it should be Universalis Iurum Humanorum Professio--Rafaelgarcia 01:53, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputatio de lemmate ab ''Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Universal Declaration of Human Rights''

message: Scisne iam duas versiones huius documenti Latine existere?  Cur igiturvtextum iterum convertere conaberis? Non intelligo et non solum quia gradus latinitatis huius novae versionis tam malus est ut non itelligatur. --Rafaelgarcia 09:11, 8 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: De Declarationis Translatione
Disputatio:Augustus Fredericus Kellner

message: Converti verba inferiora de lingua Anglica, etsi verba prima sunt Germanice scripta. Maeste Germanici sermonis illepidus, non possum legere fontem ac originem. Oro adveniat qui callet et nostram linguam et Germanicam, quo emelioretur citatio. 
*Ich konnte die Nazis damals nicht in der Gegenwart bekämpfen. Also entschloss ich mich, sie in der Zukunft zu bekämpfen. Ich wollte kommenden Generationen eine Waffe gegen jedes Wiederaufleben solchen Unrechts geben. Meine Augenzeugenberichte sollten die barbarischen Akte aufzeichnen und auch zeigen, wie man sie beenden konnte.
*"Contra nazistas pugnare in tempore praesente non poteram, quia potestatem habebant vocis meae comprimendi, ergo me constitui in futuro tempore eos pugnaturum. Daturus eram generatiobus futuris telum, quo obsistant omni resurrectioni talium malorum. Testimonium meum notaret barbarica facta, dum monstraret quomodo eis adversari.
Gratias ago.
--Ioscius (disp) 23:18, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Delevi partem quae non apparet in texto Germanice scripto supra. --UV 23:40, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias, UV. Delevi quoque in commentatione. --Ioscius (disp) 19:17, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscriptio
Disputatio:Salmanus Rushdie

message: Re vera possumus Praemium Vincere? Crediturus eram quod "praemia lucramur" et "hominem vincimus". Aut estne hoc idioma linguae Latinae?--Rafaelgarcia 13:29, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's: 'to offer a prize' = praemium (pro)ponere ; 'to gain a prize' = praemium auferre. IacobusAmor 13:52, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :[Eodem tempore scripsi!] Possumus, varietatis causa, etiam "praemium mereri" vel "praemium auferre". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Praemium vicit

message: De nostropte auctore, quod praenomen melius est? Varlaam 06:17, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Salmanus" attestatum est hic et hic. Movere igitur ad "Salmanus Rushdie" cogito. Sigur (disputatio) 18:46, 10 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salman, vel Salomon?
Disputatio:Thomas Eduardus Lawrence

message: "# T. E. Lawrence by His Friends, de Laurentio a quibus eum noverunt. Doubleday Doran, 1937."  
Estne melius dicere "ab amicis" pro "a quibus eum noverunt"?--Stef.muc 22:28, 20 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

message: Loco vocis usitate, quid est uso, haec vox arcana? IacobusAmor 00:06, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Non est arcana, venit de voce "usus, -us m". Si haec tibi non placet, potes rescindere mutationem. Valent idem.--Stef.muc 19:33, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quae cum ita sit, quid significat vox uso? Commutasti vocem usitate (Anglice: 'in the usual manner') cum hac voce arcana. ;) IacobusAmor 13:21, 22 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Cum "uso" casu ablativo sit, anglice "usually/customarily" vel theodisce "gewöhnlich/normalerweise" significat. Videsne "uso" et "usitate" idem esse? Praeterea ut dixi istam mutationem rescindere potes, si vox "usitate" tibi magis placet. Aequo animo sum.--Stef.muc 20:54, 22 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Cum usus nomen quartae declinationis sit, non exstat "uso". --Neander 21:51, 22 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Recte dicis; culpa mea. Ignominia pudorque! Exculpate mihi!--Stef.muc 19:14, 23 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Errare humanum est. Omnes cotidie aliquid discimus. Fac pergas Vicipaediam scriptis tuis ditare! --Neander 20:47, 23 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Uso?

message: :Categoria:Legati Arabiae is apparently reserved for administratores provinciarum Romanarum, not for people like Lawrence. --UV (disputatio) 22:00, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nunc distingui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 27 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  categoria
Disputatio:Scomber

message: Olim: "Scombres sunt parvi pisces Atlantici et Mediterranei." ¶ Nunc: "Scomber est quilibet multarum specierum piscium, praecipue familiae Scombridarum. Scombri in omnibus maribus tropicis temperatisque habitant." ¶ N.B.: "omnibus" (vide en:). IacobusAmor 00:28, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio
Disputatio:Malaesia

message: Habemus Latinum nominis Malaesiae fontem? Cur hoc nomen nomini Malaysiae anteponimus? IacobusAmor 17:51, 24 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: vatican.va nomen habet.   "Malaesia, Singapura, Bruneium".   —Mucius Tever 02:23, 25 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Entonces, ¿Porqué no es Lingua Malaesiana el nombre del artículo Lingua Malayana? IacobusAmor 14:21, 25 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::De auctoritate formae Latinae "Lingua Malayana" nihil dico, sed haec lingua (Bahasa Melayu) distinguenda est a "Lingua Indonesia" (Bahasa Indonesia, lingua officialis Indonesiae) et a "Lingua Malaesia" (Bahasa Malaysia, lingua officialis Malaesiae). "Lingua Malayana" est lingua officialis Singapurae et Brunei; aliis linguis officialibus subiacet, sed in variis rebus ab eis differt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 25 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Zingiber

message: Sorry for english here, doing a lot at once: This page corresponds to the family page at en:, but there is a separate page :en:Ginger for the spice. Maybe just zingiber (condimentum)? That seems weak, but maybe the right thing to do. Andrew? I know I'm bothering you a lot tonight ;] --Ioscius (disp) 22:11, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but better check with Iacobus on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:25, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :By all means, go ahead! ¶ Note that :en: defines ginger as "the rhizome of the plant Zingiber offinale"—but then it doesn't bother to have an article treating the plant itself! Nor does the rest of :en:Ginger include the usual plant data, the descriptive matter found in articles on probably thousands of other plants. A curious omission! ¶ This question highlights a pervasive problem, caused mostly by the adoption of an old Latin word for a new taxonomical concept and then Vicipaedia's need to accommodate both senses. This afternoon, I noticed that the ancient animal pardalis had gotten linked to :en:Ocelot, with a definition that didn't do justice to either term. (The ancient Greeks couldn't have known about the ocelot, endemic only to the New World.) So I whittled Pardalis down to words about the ancient world (its sense unclear, but now at least it's ready for somebody to survey the literature and tell us all about that mysterious Old World animal) and created a wholly new stipula for the ocelot, Leopardus pardalis. Which in turn brought into view the lemma (or, rather, lemmata) for "Pardus (-i, m.) sive panthera (-ae, f.), vulgo leopardus"—incomplete & misleading because the leopard is scientifically none of those, but Panthera pardus. Nor is it clear that panthera is always a leopard; Cassell's implies it's always a panther but maybe sometimes a leopard. Likewise pardus. My brain is spinning, so I'm leaving that one alone for now. As I pointed out somewhere a few weeks ago, the animals in Vicipaedia have been worse off than the plants. IacobusAmor 00:56, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I'm copying the bottom bit of this to Disputatio:Pardalis, where it seems equally relevant! Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: correspondence
Disputatio:Pardalis

message: Ita in pagina litteris celatis legi et hic removi: [ Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC) ]
Not in Cassell's. Not in White's. Evidently (because the article exists) in classical sources, but which animal was it? Some sort of panther? That's what this article should discuss—not the pardal leopard, Leopardus pardalis (ocelot), which the ancient Greeks did not know. Add classical loci &c. [ Usor:IacobusAmor ]
replies: text: As to this, btw, "" is a noun in Leopardus pardalis (teste Linnaeo), so "the pardal leopard" is a somewhat shady way to put it - it's not a "pard"-like "leopard", but a "pardal" which is a kind of "leopard"—or so we consider it today (it was a species of Felis in Systema Naturae).  —Mucius Tever 03:31, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
Addo quod in Disputatio:Zingiber legi: [ Andrew Dalby ]
¶ This question highlights a pervasive problem, caused mostly by the adoption of an old Latin word for a new taxonomical concept and then Vicipaedia's need to accommodate both senses. This afternoon, I noticed that the ancient animal pardalis had gotten linked to :en:Ocelot, with a definition that didn't do justice to either term. (The ancient Greeks couldn't have known about the ocelot, endemic only to the New World.) So I whittled Pardalis down to words about the ancient world (its sense unclear, but now at least it's ready for somebody to survey the literature and tell us all about that mysterious Old World animal) and created a wholly new stipula for the ocelot, Leopardus pardalis. Which in turn brought into view the lemma (or, rather, lemmata) for "Pardus (-i, m.) sive panthera (-ae, f.), vulgo leopardus"—incomplete & misleading because the leopard is scientifically none of those, but Panthera pardus. Nor is it clear that panthera is always a leopard; Cassell's implies it's always a panther but maybe sometimes a leopard. Likewise pardus. My brain is spinning, so I'm leaving that one alone for now. As I pointed out somewhere a few weeks ago, the animals in Vicipaedia have been worse off than the plants. IacobusAmor 00:56, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

text: Hm, when I made these pages I used the standard scientific nomenclature.  The names have been applied at least since Linnaeus.  Certainly we could add additional senses (or disambiguate) to explain ancient usage, but "pardus" and "pardalis" are not wrong for "leopard" and "ocelot".  —Mucius Tever 12:30, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

text: To which I should add that it's not a matter of incompleteness; certainly "pardus" would be an incomplete binomial name for "Panthera pardus", but the binomial is a reference style, not something you'd use in actual speech, any more than you'd say "the pard (a panther)" on every mention in English.  —Mucius Tever 13:04, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fair enough, and as this is a reference work, the lemma for the panther should probably be something like:
replies: text: ::Panthera pardus, antique breviterque aliquando panthera et pardus, et praesenti tempore inscienter leopardus. . . .

text: : ;) IacobusAmor 13:44, 29 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adnotatio celata
Disputatio:Naucratis

message: Hoc removi "Cum Hadrianus princeps Antinoopolin condidit, urbs Naucratis paradeigma habita est" quia non intellego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 28 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote that clearly meant paradigma. Now do you understand? ;)

text: To be serious, though, what they were referring to is the special privileges the Romans granted to Naucratis, Alexandria and Ptolemais as "Greek Cities." When Antinoopolis was founded, it was expressly added to this category as well. See e.g.  and so on.

text: --Iustinus 00:57, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non intellego 

message: I wanted to add the Egyptian name of the city, but when I started looking up the forms it rapidly got too complex to add here, unless we want a section on this obscure topic (seems to be rather obscure even to Egyptologists!) nearly as long as the article itself. But for now, I'll make a chart and put it here. --Iustinus 00:57, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
Aegyptie                	Sensus
niwt-kA*Z1:r-ti-i-niwt  	Urbs Kurta
Nỉw.t-Kɜrtỉ             	Urbs Kurta
niwt-kA:r-T:niwt        	Urbs Kurta (Kurčive)
Nỉw.t-Kɜrṯ              	Urbs Kurta (Kurčive)
n:A-kA*Z1-r:Z1-TA-t:niwt	Illae Kurači
Nɜ-Kɜrṯɜ.t              	Illae Kurači
Dem. Na-Krḏ             	Quae illius Krač sunt
Dem. Na-Krḏ             	Quae illius Krač sunt
Dem. Nɜy=w-Kɜrḏ         	Illa eorum Kurač
pr-Z1-mr:t-mw           	Domus (i.e. locus) Portus
Pr-Mrw                  	Domus (i.e. locus) Portus
Dem. Bɜ-Dd(???)         	???
Dem. pɜ dmỉ n pɜ Ỉsw    	Oppidum Ovis
OK, on the Naucratis Stele, col 10 it is written exactly like this Nỉw.t-Kɜrṯ I found in my lexical sources, but without the Nỉw.t sign. Translators (e.g. Lichtheim) usually put it back in, but I suspect it wasn't left off by accident: it means "city" after all. Clearly the Egyptians felt the name of the city was Krači (or the like), and that the Na(u)- at the beginning was just a prefix of some sort (variously orthographically interpreted.) Note that the palatalization of the t at the end corresponds well with other evidence of how Greek was pronounced in Egypt. --Iustinus 08:12, 14 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian name of Naucratis
Disputatio:Seiko Noda

message: I have been told that "In Vicipaedia, we usually Latinize people's first name (while we usually do not Latinize last names)." The first name is "Seiko/Seico" with Seico being the Latinized version of the name. Habemus 20:07, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, I see that you moved the page from Seico Noda to Seiko Noda a few weeks ago, would you like to comment? --UV 20:10, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, the relevant rule at VP:TNP is "Si nomen Latinum adhuc non exstat usitatum, praenomina vertantur (siquidem verti possunt)" or, in English, "forenames are translated (if translation is possible)". So, for example, "James" can be translated to "Iacobus". But we can't invent (see VP:NF). We can't make up Latin forenames where they have not previously existed. If there is already evidence of Seico as the Latin translation of the Japanese forename Seiko, then we can use it. Please cite evidence.

text: :If there is no existing Latin translation of Seiko, we fall back on our general rule, to transliterate names in non-Latin scripts using the best-accepted international transliteration. That gives us Seiko Noda. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thank you then. Habemus 02:19, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you too for the work you're doing. It's much appreciated! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

message: Isn't whatever exists of this page basically a translation or comes from the English page maybe the Japanese one? Is there a way that could be marked?
Habemus (disputatio) 23:31, 24 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. We discussed the general question a while ago but there was disagreement about how it should be done. Since you ask, I will raise it again at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Please comment there if you wish! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation
Disputatio:Lingua Russica

message: Lingua sarmatica est nomen linguae russicae apud "Lingua latina sine molestia" ex Clementes Desessard [anon]
replies: text: Gratias agimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Nonne debeamus commendabiles tantum linguae appellationes in textu principali afferre? "Moscovitica" et "Sarmatica" sunt appellationes obsoletae, quae potius in notis relegari possint. Quod ad "Sarmaticam" attinet, nonne una e linguis "Scythicis" fuit, quae, ut videtur, ad familiam potius Iranicam quam Slavicam pertinuerunt. --Neander 18:00, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

text: Consentio. Tu vis primas sententias rescribere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Rescripsi. Quamquam mea opinione etiam nunc nimias appellationes habemus, non audeo plures in notis relegare, quia in lexicis Russicis – an debeam "in lexicis Ruthenicis" scribere :-) ? – afferuntur. --Neander 18:57, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

message: Acsacal sodalibus wikipaedistis sal.
Secundum glossarium "Gaffiot de poche" :
* latina vox conjugatio = rapport étymologique des mots ;
* latina vox declinatio = a) toute espèce de changement amené dans un mot par la déclinaison, la conjugaison, la dérivation b)\[en part\] la déclinaison ; la conjugaison.
Valete omnes,
Acsacal 12:42, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sunt declinatio nominum et coniugatio verbi. -- Alexander Geraščenko 15:41, 14 Maii 2011 (UTC)

text: E.g., in lingua Latina sunt declinationes prima, secunda, tertia et quarta et quinta nominum substantivorum, sed coniugationes prima, secunda, tertia, quarta  verborum. Ergo, scribendum est de declinationibus nominum, sed de coniugationibus verborum Russicorum. -- Alexander Geraščenko 01:11, 15 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coniugatio aut declinatio ?
Disputatio:Epitaphium

message: In lingua Latina, estne epitaphium verbum optimum? Nonne valet potius ac "euology", epigramma autem ad "epitaph"? --Ioscius (disp) 14:08, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Secundum Cassell's, Anglicum nomen 'epitaph' Latine conversum = titulus et elogium. Latinum nomen epitaphium = 'a funeral oration' (Cicero), et epigramma = 'an inscription, an epigram'. IacobusAmor 14:59, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quoque secundum Traupvirum "titulus". --Ioscius (disp) 15:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

text: De verbo epitaphium aliquid scripsi quia erant multi nexus rubri cum verbo epitaphium. Hic non est confundenda latinitas aurea cum latinitate posthumanistica et hodierna. Apud Graecos epitaphios erat oratio in honorem mortuorum apud moderniores epitaphium (pro epigramma epitaphium) est genus epigrammatis in monumento sive tumba inscriptum.--Bruxellensis 15:15, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vera dicis. Est Latinatis, quamquam licet non aureae. Demitto ergo rem, nexusque addam. --Ioscius (disp) 15:18, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Si auctores tam mediaevales quam humanisticos legis invenies permulta carmina (immo innumera!) quibus titulus est "Epitaphium".--Bruxellensis 15:20, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de titulo

message: Addidisti perpulchrum photographema quo apparet te tam magnus viator esse quam latinizans!--Bruxellensis 15:40, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte suspicaris =] Cepi illud photographema ipse, cum aestate Romae sub Reginaldo discipulus eram. Mea sententia, elegia, quam scripsit Bembus, pulcherrimarum est pulcherrima.--Ioscius (disp) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sub optimo et celeberrimo Magistro latine eruditus es! Ausus sum minimam mendam transcriptionis mutare quae metricam offendebat. Vale perquam optume.--Bruxellensis 15:50, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

text: Minime ausus, male legi ego. --Ioscius (disp) 15:54, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: imago

message: Nescio quales categorias huic addere debeam... Scitne quis? --Ioscius (disp) 21:17, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  categoria 

message: Amice Bruxellensis, mos in hodiernis elegiorum editionibus est pentametra (versus 2, 4, 6, 8, &c.) indentare. Ergo:
replies: text: :Ille hic est Raphael, timuit quo sospite vinci
replies: text: ::rerum magna parens, et moriente mori.
non

text: :Ille hic est Raphael, timuit quo sospite vinci

text: :rerum magna parens, et moriente mori.
Cur? Fortasse quia hexametra sunt longiora, pentametra breviora. IacobusAmor 12:20, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)I

text: Recte me monuisti, mi optime Iacobe Amor, ita scribuntur etenim semper versus elegiaci ut bene distinguantur inter se hexameter et pentameter. Vale.--Brux 12:54, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Typographia

message: The change of tristia to Tristia on 2017-09-14T17:29:10:
https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epitaphium&diff=3298344&oldid=3298340
strikes me as doubtful. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:27, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte mones, amice. Rem refecimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:23, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of tristia to ''[[Tristia]]'' ?
Disputatio:Apex (orthographia Latina)

message: Accentos in loco macronum huius modi quidem vidi apud scriptores Vicipaedianos, j in loco i vocalis autem non. Quid agitur hic? --Ioscius (disp) 14:49, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Volui hic ut bene intellexisti monstrare usum litterae quae extabat apud antiquos et quae vocabatur I longa. In epigraphia scribitur I. Cum in sermone italiano littera j semper vocatur "i longo", in semone neerlandico j vocatur lange ei, putavi hoc signo utendum esse. Sed si displicet possum mutare j cum I. Vale. --Bruxellensis 14:54, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Epigraphice scribitur ꟾ. "I" fuit I simplex, sed I longa producitur longius quam aliae litterae qui nunc maiusculae vocantur. —Mucius Tever 00:03, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
Fortasse melius esset tantum in parte de orthographia uti apicibus? Fortasse etiam melius esset in paginas proprias dividere et hanc paginam disambiguationem facere? --Ioscius (disp) 14:55, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: orthographia

message: Rem apex convertendam ut paginam discretivam habeam (vide Anglicam rem), eisdem paginis atque pagina Anglica annexuram: apex (geometria), apex (signum diacriticum), apex (religio Iovalis), etc. Demagis cum signis diacriticis scribere, itaque cum i maiusculis, ob typum elementorum Vicipaediae, litterae i facile cum L sunt confundendae... forsitan autem propterne signa diacritica formula  in paginam posita sit, modoque rationes usoris, qui formulam poneret, dictitemne? — Mattie 00:02, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Ioscium iam separationem suasisse video. — Mattie 00:08, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina dividenda 

message: Do the languages quoted therein really use apices, or just acute accents...? Mattie 21:15, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Usus hodiernus"
Disputatio:David Shankbone

message: I don't know if any ancient Roman writers ever mention the Negev by name. However, when it appears in the Vulgate, it is generally just translated by some variant of meridies or terra australis. But Negev was definitely perceived, at least sometimes, as a proper noun--it even shows up in Egyptian as Nagba. If Jerome had transliterated the name, he surely would have used Negeb... but so far as I can tell, he never did. The LXX however, uses Ναγεβ at Ios. 10:40. So I would propose Nageb. --Iustinus 03:54, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Negev