lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Leua (urbs)

message: For a long time this long page had the formula -6, i.e., too bad to keep. Rather than delete the whole thing, I have rewritten two paragraphs and deleted the rest. If anyone wants to work on the rest of it, it is all there in the history! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinitas 

message: Polynesii nomen naturaliter enuntiabunt Leúa, paenultimum /u/ vehementius dicentes. Cur non scriptum Leva? Etiam, Léua (non Leva) est urbs Angolensis. IacobusAmor 13:58, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Akira Kurosawa

message: # Cur nomen Iaponicum invertimus? Nonne melius Curosava Acira?
# Cur translitterationem fere universalem reiicimus? Ergo, optime Kurosawa Akira. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine 

message: The English infobox does not work properly here.--Felix Folio Secundus 15:45, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's right, it doesn't. We had a discussion and there was a sort of consensus against detailed biographical infoboxes: see Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis. The small infobox  works, if you want one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :If you're talking about the infobox that prints these data:
replies: text: ::Akira Kurosawa

text: ::黒澤 明 vel 黒沢 明

text: ::Born Martii 23, 1910(1910-03-23)

text: ::Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan

text: ::Died Formula:Death date and age

text: ::Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan

text: ::Occupation Director, producer, screenwriter, editor

text: ::Years active 1936–1993

text: ::Spouse Yōko Yaguchi (1945–1985) (her death); two children,

text: :it's working fine on my screen, albeit with English arguments because our kind programmers haven't yet Latinized them. If someone would like to convert  here to , by all means do so! As one of the 1000 bloody pages, this article invites editorial attention. In general of course, for the purposes of elegant graphic design, boxes are always welcomed on my screen. IacobusAmor 16:29, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, done. Hope your screen welcomes it, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Disputatio:Opus fictile

message: Hi Andrew, I just thought that figlina might be better for :en:pottery rather than :en:ceramic, but I cannot think of any other word for ceramic, other than terra. What do you think?--Xaverius 11:01, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Figlina is the art, not the pots. When you can't find a Latin word for an English word, try a synonym of the English word. Cassell's doesn't have a Latin term for the English word ceramic, but under the English word earthenware you'll find the Latin noun fictilia (-ium, pl.) and the Latin adjective fictilis, -e. Will these words help? IacobusAmor 11:08, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was trying to do that from Spanish synonims. So figlina would be :es:Alfarería and then fictilia :es:cerámica?--Xaverius 11:10, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, that's it, surely. If you want a singular word for the heading (corresponding with the en:wiki "Ceramic") then it would be fictile neut. sg. This is for focusing on the materials. If you are focusing on the work done with ceramic materials, I think you can have the phrase opus fictile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:21, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::OK, I'll put this in the disputatio--Xaverius 13:11, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The interwiki on this page are all screwed up: ceramics is not the same as pottery.

text: ::::There are a lot of ceramics (latine ceramica) that have nothing to do with pottery or earthware, and includes things such as glass, graphite, boron, alumina, porcelain, etc.... There is also the science/engineering art of ceramics (et Latine ceramica), which studies these types of materials and their manufacture; whose professionals are known as ceramists (ceramista or ceramicus).

text: ::::At present the page es:ceramica is about ceramic materials per se, and not specifically about clay (fictile) or earthenware (opus fictile, figlina), which comprise only a small portion of ceramics; yet es:ceramica and similar pages are the ones that opus fictile and fictile are linked to. Thus the links are all screwed up. Don't get confused about the fact that the greek word κέραμος (keramos) means fictile, in borrowed form it means something wider and scientific.--123.192.69.44 13:57, 24 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceramic/pottery

message: I'm surprised that I put this tag on the page without explaining -- but clearly I did so. Sorry. What I meant was that Isidore is not a reliable source for real etymologies. No writer anywhere is reliable on that subject before about 1800: etymology as we know it just wasn't understood before then. So the word's origin, if discussed, needs to cite a modern source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 24 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientia dubia
Disputatio:Episcopi et archiepiscopi Tolosani

message: Déjà, je salue l'intelligence de la première intervention sur cette page. Alors là, chapeau : je n'aurais pas fait mieux. Être assez perspicace pour se rendre compte que ce n'est pas du latin, bref, le niveau monte… Moi qui pense que nos Anciens sont des crétins, ai-je tant raison ? Il est bien évident que cette page n'était qu'une ébauche (c'est en interwikifiant les évêques toulousains que j'ai jugé utile d'importer la page française de liste). Bon, pour la suite : j'ai préféré laisser en l'état, parce que je ne connais pas encore bien les formulæ disponibles par icitte, le nom des sections, etc. (Oh lala ! quel crime !), anticipant, à juste titre, l'amélioration par d'autres contributeurs – de bon niveau. Ce que vous avez ajouté, (perfide) Andrew Dalby, c'est bien ; mais attention à ne pas perdre de l'information au passage ! ainsi, supprimer « concordataires » est une grosse perte : il fallait laisser le temps de trouver le terme exact ; de même, les catégories : il faut réfléchir à une hiérarchie : évêques de Gaule, de France, qui incluront les listes des diocèses ; là, tout est perdu. Enfin, le nom de la page : il faudrait la renommer, quelque chose en « Index episcoporum archiepiscoporumque Tolosanorum » ou « et » ou « & » ou « et postea » ; je ne sais pas (comment faisait saint Isidore (de Séville), patron du terNette, ?), c'est pourquoi je suis allé au plus simple : « Episcopi Tolosani ».
--Budelberger 19:41, 25 Octobris 2008 (UTC) ().
replies: text: Sorry, I did not see this comment until now. Yes, you're right, some information is currently lost (though it's in the history, of course). I was working rapidly, and I thought it better to make the page look at least partly Latin, so that it does not risk being deleted. Hence, it's true, I eliminated some headings which I could not immediately translate into Latin.

text: As to the categories, you're right again. But it's not the most urgent problem: we need more lists and articles, as well as more categories ...

text: I would love to know whether the Saint Hilaire who occurs early in this list is the same as the well known Saint Hilaire of Poitiers and Tours. I could not immediately find a biography that confirmed his presence in Toulouse.

text: For a title, I think maybe Episcopi et archiepiscopi Tolosani will do. Brevity is a good thing, I think: the fact that this is an "index" is obvious, really. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :On Saint Hilaire, it appears from Patrice Cabau's article that he is buried in Toulouse, and therefore must be a different Saint Hilaire.

text: :I have gradually restored in Latin the information initially added by Budelberger in French (at least, most of it). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 29 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverses choses 

message: It's a little too early to delete the redirect Episcopi Tolosani. Some interwiki links still point that way. Later, no doubt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 6 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not so fast!
Disputatio:Risina

message: Pontremoli vel Ercolano?--Xaverius 12:41, 27 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

message: Nomen huiusce urbis originale Herculaneum ac non Herculanum fuisse mihi non liquet. Nomen verum apud quos scriptores reperitur vel qua inscriptione revelatur? - Bavarese (disputatio) 16:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  de urbis nomine
Disputatio:American cheese

message: Andrea amice, cur delevisti imaginem huius commentationis quam primum inseruisti?--Ioscius (disp) 21:32, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve optime, Iosci! ... quia imago iacet apud en:wiki, minime apud communia; igitur nobis non apparuit. Hades. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ahhhh, et optima quidem ratio. Ignosce...--Ioscius (disp) 03:43, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: imago
Disputatio:Clazomenae

message: Imago iacet apud en:wiki (et minime apud communia): igitur nobis inutilis est. Sed fortasse possumus in communia inserere.
replies: text: Haec quidem imago eius generis videtur esse, quae a magistratu quodam in communia inseri possit.
Verba barbara "permissus erratum" ubi vides? Ego non video. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

text: Nexu rubro Imago: Klazo Map.JPG mure "cliccato" videbis.

text: --Neander 04:27, 2 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Nexum ad imaginem removi, quia permissio huius imaginis dubia est. --UV 21:35, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : At videas hanc paginam ubi, si satis recte perspexi, enumerantur imagines quae ad communia addi possint. --Neander 22:16, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imago
Disputatio:Tofus

message: Care 151.20.191.230, mutasti vulcanicum ad volcanicum, sed non mutasti omnes locos (in aliis commentariis) in quibus forma huius vocis adest. Voce vulcanicum (non volcanicum) in nonnullis commentariis iam creata, vulcanicus, -a, -um ut videtur secundum morem vicipaedicanum est melius. Quid putant alii? IacobusAmor 17:11, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Magnopere refert, utrum Cicerone an, puta, Quintiliano duce velimus scribere. Constat enim adhuc Ciceronem "Volcanum" scripsisse sed iam iuniores "Vulcanum". De hac re Manu Leumann ille: "Verzögerung des Wandels o > u hinter v und u, also Schreibung vo uo für vu uu ... bis zum Beginn der Kaiserzeit. [Lineam subscripsi Neander.] So, ... volgus volnus voltus volt āvolsus Volcānus Volturnus Volscī und avonculus für vulgus vulnus usw. (Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre [1977] § 46)." --Neander 01:27, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

text: Hac in re puto Vicipaedianos consuevisse a Cicerone abhorrere. --Neander 01:36, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcanicum ~ Vulcanicum
Disputatio:Oliver & Company

message: Why this title had "Ditson" where every other language had "&", I don't know and couldn't guess. So I changed it. If there was a reason, please explain. "&" is an originally Latin ligature standing for "et" (see Ligatura), or, when used in English, "and". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:57, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
OK, I made an account because it's so awesome here, and Oliver & Company is one of my favorite movies! I think I saw it somewhere as Oliver Ditson Company so that's how I made it. Thanks for the info! Touchpath 23:00, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please add the following template? Pelliculae animatae a Walt Disney Societate creatae. Bambifan101 (disputatio) 15:47, 1 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ditson
Disputatio:Gladius

message: Maybe this page (gladius) should be kepfor the Roman sword, and the general article on "sword" should be moved to ensis? Now ensis redirects to gladius. --Xaverius 17:59, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ensis is usually said to be poetical (and therefore unsuitable for most prose). IacobusAmor 18:12, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gladius et ensis
Disputatio:Chios

message: Verba "et oppodis mediaevalibus" non intellego: igitur removi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:43, 31 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non intellego 

message: * De nomine praehistorico insulae mortales nihil sciunt (vide definitionem verbi "praehistoricus")!
* De alio nomine urbis (Χώρα) ad paginam urbis removeo.
* De municipiis et de peripheria ad paginam praefecturae removeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:09, 18 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliqua removi
Disputatio:Minerale

message: Will a native English-speaker kindly let me know how purum is grammatical here? The only available neuter noun for it to modify seems to be Minerale, but we don't ordinarily treat a lemma that way, as it would then cry out to be Minerale purum. Nor is purum likely to be an adverb, as Cassell's gives the adverb as pūrē. What gives? IacobusAmor 19:30, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose an English speaker might be tempted to write "A mineral is a material, pure in its chemical composition" thus, but you might just ask Ioscius who apparently put it there around the beginning of the year.  —Mucius Tever 23:55, 1 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, but aside from the omission of an obligatory comma, that pure is modifying material, so the Latin must then be materia, pura. The thing that grammatically has a composition is the material, not the mineral. That's why the phrase puzzles. ¶ Also, the larger context—Minerale est materia purum chemica compositione, saepissime cum constitutione atomica perordinata et coitione rigida—is an odd rendering of the English: "A mineral is a naturally occurring substance formed through geological processes that has a characteristic [not 'pure'] chemical composition, a highly ordered atomic structure, and specific physical properties." IacobusAmor 00:07, 2 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Minerale est materia purum chemica compositione"

message: ...quaerit --Alex1011 11:39, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidenter fuit ille Pantocrator qui paginam movit ad hoc nomen sensu egens.--173.70.154.122 12:08, 21 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mineral" aut "minerale"...
Disputatio Categoriae:Scriptores Russiae

message: I suggest creating separate categories for the writers of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, because only some writers which are at present included into this category lived and worked in both of these 2 countries. I also stand for including there not the whole categories, sorting writers by country, but only separate pages. Doing so, we can avoid such situations, as that with :Categoria:Scriptores Casachiae, where the only page, which is present at the moment, is about a person, who lived long before the lands of the present-day Kazakhstan were parts of the Russian Empire and the USSR. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:43, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find the Alpharabius thing a problem. But if you do, and can see a solution to it, fine!

text: I have a low opinion of governments, and therefore I think it's better when our categories don't depend on changes of government. Also, the problem with having a different category for each successive state is that people, perforce, live and work under more than one of them: all those people then have to go in more than one category. But if you really think it would help readers, I have no strong objection.

text: To me, the important categories are those that cover a geographical area (like :Categoria:Scriptores Russiae and :Categoria:Scriptores Casachiae. I would object to removing writers from those categories in favour of some short-term political one. This present category was just intended as an extra kind of approach to the same main categories. If you think it causes confusion, maybe the simpler way would be to delete it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :In my opinion, categories like :Categoria:Scriptores Russiae and :Categoria:Scriptores Casachiae do not just cover a geographical area, but reflect the present-day political division. As I agree that it is important to show, which state or states the territories where a person, described in an article, lived and worked now belong to, I am not the one to suggest removing articles from these categories in favour of the categories showing the political division of the period of the person's activity. But as that former political division was probably much more important for the person described, I find it useful to reflect it using a special category. But I think that (at least now) it would be usually enough to have some general categories, like :Categoria:Homines Unionis Sovieticae, for this purpose. -- Alexander Gerascenco 17:20, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, everything that you say makes good sense. I think it would be a very sensible solution. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputatio mota ex ''Disputatio Categoriae:Scriptores Imperii Russici et Unionis Sovieticae''
Disputatio:Phonetica Hispanica

message: Pronuntiatio aut Literarum appellatio (confer )--Massimo Macconi 20:13, 7 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

message: # "Pronuntiation" is pronuntiatio in Latin, according to my dictonary.
# Vocalis and consonans are nouns of female gender and not neuter.
# All of these articles are titled Pronuntiatio... and not pronuntiatus, so if the first title is incorrect (that I think it IS the correct title), you must rename all of these articles.
Thanks, --El Mexicano 08:41, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod ad vocales et consonantes attinet, absque dubio recte dixisti: menda tollam.

text: De pronuntiatione autem minus feliciter me iudicavisse videris, cum indicibus qui verba ex popularibus sermonibus in Latinum vertunt nulla est fides. Immo vero opus est testes classicos citare qui vocabulum tali sensu adhibuerunt. Constant autem pronuntiationem vocare quod in foro declamatum est, aut histrionum modum legendi et agendi, neque quod ad singulas spectat litteras. Hoc antiquitus quidem dicebatur appellatio vel pronuntiatus vel locutio.--Ceylon 11:10, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
Veritas est quod non scio dictionarium meum Latinitatem qualis temporum usat. Dictionarium Hungarico-Latinum (Aloysio Györkösy scriptum) Pronuntiationem dicit. --El Mexicano 11:28, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :See Lewis and SHort, which says "Appellatio:... In gram. Pronunciation:  suavitas vocis et lenis appellatio litterarum, Cic. Brut. 74, 259; Quint. 11, 3, 35"; the next closest match is "Pronuntiatus:... pronunciation (post-class.): ratio in pronuntiatu, Gell. 4, 17, 8; 15, 3, 1." So it seems the preferred term would be "appellatio", but "pronuntiatus" is also correct. See also the english page ":en:pronuntiatio" wherein they describe the classic meaning of pronuntiatio as "Delivery" in rhetoric, and Lewis and Short where they describe pronuntiatio means:"A public declaration, publication, proclamation: quā pronuntiatione factā, Caes. B. C. 2, 25 fin. — Of the decision of a judge, Cic. Clu. 20, 56; Petr. 80; Dig. 48. — Of the proclamation of a public crier, Val. Max. 4, 8, 5" which basically means "announcement".--Rafaelgarcia 12:02, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
You are right (I thought that my dictionary was not the best one :) --El Mexicano 12:41, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think there is something wrong
Disputatio:Seminarium Redemptoris Matris

message: Revera? Non Seminarius Redemptoris Matris? IacobusAmor 13:37, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eamdem rem putavit, sed nomen vero est Mater, vide pagina Hispanica--Xaverius 14:09, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quae nobis ait: "Redemptoris Mater es el nombre dado a todos los seminarios." Certe, nomen seminarii est Redemptoris Mater, non Seminarius Redemptoris Mater. Etiam, si nos nomine sancti utimur, constantia verborum casum genetivum hic exigit. Ecce: Ecclesia Sancti Petri (non Ecclesia Sanctus Petrus) et Collegium Sancti Petri (non Collegium Sanctus Petrus); ergo, Seminarius Matris (non Seminarius Mater). Similiter Anglice: Saint Peter's Church, non Saint Peter Church. IacobusAmor 14:24, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Deinde pagina est movenda--Xaverius 14:29, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Eodem tempore moveatur etiam "seminarius" in "seminarium" (neutrius generis), nam "seminarius" est seminum venditor. --Neander 14:52, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Probe dicis, amice! IacobusAmor 15:26, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Eheu! Nunc in commentario Iter Neocatechumenale usor ignotus 189.138.129.26 "seminarium" in "seminarius" mutavit! O inscios indoctrinatores! IacobusAmor 03:02, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen: Seminarius Redemptoris Mater
Disputatio:Leo (constellatio)

message: De: "Leo est constellatio in caelo septentrionali. Leo est etiam zodium." Quid est zodium, haec res arcanissima? IacobusAmor 13:43, 11 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ζῴδιον est "signum zodiaci".  —Mucius Tever 11:30, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Zodium?
Disputatio:Collegium Sancti Petri (Aucopolis)

message: Vicipaedia traditionally doesn't link to other wikis; if the list is important, latinize it here as a separate article and then make a link to it? or add it into this article, as a section Incluti scholae alumni or something like that? IacobusAmor 20:54, 12 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to :en: in the middle of articles
Disputatio:Tacuinum sanitatis

message: Hanc paginam deleri velim, ut Tacuinum Sanitatis (cum S magna) hic moveri possit. Mos enim apud nos esse videtur, ut nuper didici, in librorum titulis primam tantum litteram scribere magnam, alias omnes parvas. --Fabullus 10:17, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Factum est! Tacuinum sanitatis nunc est titulus ipsius paginae, et Tacuinum Sanitatis factum est pagina redirectionis. --Fabullus 11:35, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine paginae 

message: Anyone know who wrote the Latin translation? --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:04, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems modern scholars are more interested in the pictures than the text. According to en: one Latin translation is signed by "Magister Faragius", probably Nigellus Farage. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ha! Lesgles (disputatio) 09:14, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpres
Disputatio:Lucius Livius Andronicus

message: Help somebody could please help me to let work vicicitatio, I m not able, thanks--85.2.214.212 11:31, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a page at Vicicitatio, we need a link to it, please. Then we can help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, I've found it now. The link is . But I can't get any further. No doubt someone understands this business, it's too complicated for me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It was just the wrong formula: The page is at Vicifons, not at Vicicitatio, therefore we need to use the formula . --Amphitrite 15:43, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

message: The praenomen Lucius is accepted by Der kleine Pauly, on what grounds I don't know. Since he is commonly known as Livius Andronicus, and no one else has this name, I don't see any strong reason for the move. We can have a redirect, of course. Would that be OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the introduction in the Loeb series, he "came into the possession of one Lucius Livius" (otherwise unknown, but "probably the father of Livius Salinator"). According to custom, when he became a freedman, he received his former owner's name but kept his original cognomen, so his full name was Lucius Livius Andronicus, and that should therefore (lest uninformed readers think Livius was his praenomen and Andronicus his nomen) be our lemma. IacobusAmor 13:12, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for checking. Yes, good point. I've moved it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 13 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Care 62.18.116.220, utens sine nomine, "circa annum" in "circa anno" mutasti, dicens "Il complemento di tempo determinato si esprime in ablativo semplice," sed false dixisti: circa casum accusativum semper petit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:04, 3 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "circa anno"