lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Zombi

message: I'm almost sure that "cadaver animatum" has arisen as a "noli fingere" breach by a hapax legomenon producing debutant some three years ago -- and voilà: that invention has spawned almost 600 googleable hits. Well, that's how I tend to see and tell the story, but maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm right, this is one more example of how quickly pieces of good and bad info spreads in the net. I'm not saying that "cadaver animatum" is bad Latin, but mythinks it'd be more felicitous to use it as a definiens of the loan word zombi. As a living language -- anyway, we are much more alive than most of the languages figuring in wiki -- Latin is fully entitled to adopt loans. --Neander 13:51, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ¡Qué poder! Nevertheless: (1) borrowings, as you say, are OK; and (2) as a synonym, would something like mortuus animatus 'a living corpse'—or, more memorable because more shocking, mortuus vivus—just as well (as my great-aunt used to say) hit the spot? IacobusAmor 14:03, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree about the suggested move; moreover, animated. But how to spell it? Creole zonbi, French zombi(e)", or English zombie? Lesgles (disputatio) 05:02, 16 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Merriam-Webster has two lemmata: "zombie also zombi," and it has the lemma zombiism [not zombieism] ("the beliefs and practices of the cult of the zombi" [N.B. not zombie]). So that's two major languages that accept zombi. ¶ Note that for a figurative use ("a person held to resemble the so-called walking dead"), Merriam-Webster suggests automaton. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 16 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Zombi seems a good compromise choice, then. (Creole is less commonly written, and zombi is probably as good as zonbi at representing the Creole spoken form.) As Neander said above, "cadaver animatum" may be a reasonable definition (for this use of animare cf. Ovid, Met. 4.619 etc.) -- we can't be blamed for trying to devise definitions -- but no need to create a Latin lemma when we can use the international word. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 16 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I went ahead and moved it. Eventually we will need an article on the general concept of the undead (mort-vivant, Untoter). Lesgles (disputatio) 20:15, 16 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: In the Lives of the Fathers of Mérida bishop Massona is referred to as biotenatus (cap. XII in the PL edition), which is given in the Liverpool translation by A. Fear as 'living corpse' (V.6.17; as per the Greek biothanatos). Would Biotenatus be a good lemma for 'zombie'?--Xaverius 08:20, 17 Maii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, I think. According to DuCange  and Lewis and Short  biothanatus is someone who dies a violent death, with the prefix originally being not bio- "life" but bia- "violence" (see also Liddell and Scott, βιοθάνατος, βιαιοθάνατος, and Lewis and Short, biaeothanatus). Lesgles (disputatio) 14:32, 17 Maii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons latinum?
Disputatio:Colonizatio Europaea Americarum

message: Xavi, in
replies: text: "Paginis minimis Vicipaedicis necesse sunt:

text: Titulus, in lemmate repetitus, a citatione sive nexu corroboratus

text: Definitio lemmatis
which part of "necesse" and "Definitio lemmatis" don't you understand? ;) IacobusAmor 15:34, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sorry, I was working on it, you were simply too fast!--Xaverius 15:36, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Call me Mr. Speedy! IacobusAmor 15:37, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: non stipula

message: Somehow, though, this is unsatisfying:
replies: text: Colonisatio Europaea Americarum est spatium temporis inter annum 1492 et saeculum XIX, in quo nationes Europaeae terras in Americano continente ceperunt, rexerunt et populaverunt.

text: The European colonizing of the Americas is the period between the year 1492 and the nineteenth century, in which European tribes seized, marked out the boundaries of, and plundered lands on the American continent.
For that matter, the exordium of the article at :en: isn't all that encouraging either! IacobusAmor 15:44, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse civitates pro nationes, regnaverunt pro rexerunt atque incolaverunt pro populaverunt?--Xaverius 16:28, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio lemmatis

message: I believe we've standardized on using 'z' in these words, haven't we? I see 'z' on many other pages, and I believe I was corrected when I used 's'. Of course, 's' is most common in 18th-century Latin, but 'z' I believe is the only form supportable classically. Pantocrator 12:52, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero. --Gabriel Svoboda 13:08, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Peccavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonisatio??
Disputatio Categoriae:Formae administrationis

message: "Formae administrationis" could be OK, but maybe Neander would have a view. With rerum publicarum I was of course going with the sense of respublica = '(the) state', and an English equivalent might be :en:Category:Politics of Samoa. For 'forms', morphologia already appears in :Categoria:Morphologia plantarum. IacobusAmor 12:58, 4 Maii 2010 
(UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion. The term was originally yours (see Forma administrationis). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen categoriae
Disputatio:Saeptum Iudaicum Sciamhaevense

message: Before anyone asks—"Sciamhaevensis" is the diocese name; according to Morgan, Egger gives it without the 'c'.  I don't know where our Sanghaevum comes from.  "Saeptum Iudaicum" is one of Morgan's several suggestions, but there's probably a better way to express the concept.  —Mucius Tever 01:59, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Sanghaevum came ultimately from a modern chinese latinist in Shanghai, who was quoted in a number of neolatin websites. Sciamhaevum, although more removed from the original in (classical) pronunciation is better attested and should be put first.--24.107.235.195 04:03, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Then we should probably move the city article as well. I'll create a category for it anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)

message: Etiam ex en: Jewish Chinese history | Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany | Jewish Japanese history | Jews and Judaism in China | World War II ghettos | International response during the Holocaust Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 6 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex obscuritate hic movi
Disputatio:Gulielmus I (imperator Germaniae)

message: "Gulielmus I . . . fuit . . . Imperator Germaniae."—According to :en:, he was not the Emperor of Germany, but instead the German Emperor, and the precise phrasing of this title was a matter of great political moment. Shouldn't it be changed here? IacobusAmor 03:22, 8 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title was "Deutscher Kaiser", so I changed it. Alex1011 06:06, 8 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nonne ipsum titulum huius paginae eodem modo mutare opportet? Moveatur ergo? --Bavarese (disputatio) 07:57, 15 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita. Per me move si vis. Nescio an possumus titulum Latinum in fonte quodam reperire. Si non reperitur, quid dicis? "(imperator Germanus)"? "(imperator Germanicus)"? N.B. munus littera minuscula scribere solemus, non "Imperator" sed "imperator". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 15 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Titulo recto nondum reperto paginam non audeo movere. Sed nimirum alicubi versionem latinam Constitutionis Imperii Germanici (ex anno 1871) inveniemus, cuius in articulo 11 legimus Das Präsidium des Bundes steht dem Könige von Preußen zu, welcher den Namen Deutscher Kaiser führt. Ea versione docti, certe sciemus, quid sit scribendum. - Sin autem prius movendum putamus, respicientibus ad nomen Imperium Germanicum in nostra Vicipaedia nonne Imperator Germanicus praeponderet? --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:57, 15 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Consentio ego :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 15 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen: Gulielmus I (Imperator Germaniae)
Disputatio:Virginia Déjazet

message: Fortasse erro, Andrea, te vidi recensuisse hanc paginam. Eius nomem videbatur "Paulina-Virginia Déjazet", estne ratio bona quare sit scriptum Virginia litteris Italicis? --Ioscius  ∞ 12:49, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: litterae italicae

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 4. Lipsiae 1906, p. 594 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis
Disputatio:Thrombocytus

message: Ecce Leucocyti et Erythrocyti. Estne hic titulus recte scriptus? --Ioscius  ∞ 15:13, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search of Google Books shows Leucocyti as the Latin, and Leucociti as the Italian, so I suspect some Italianate language crept in here. --Robert.Baruch 21:43, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good move! -- Ioscius  ∞ 22:21, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: citi/cyti
Disputatio Categoriae:Academia Lugduno-Batava

message: Ubi est universitas Leidensis? Fortasse Academia Lugduno-Batava? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, verificavi: eadem est. Categorias enim deleo ut contribuamus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubi est?
Disputatio Categoriae:Gemini

message: Nonne melius "Gemini"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 11 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Categorias nunc contribui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Et separavi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motum a ":Categoria:Homines gemelli"
Disputatio Categoriae:Domini Cancellarii Anglici et Britannici

message: Haec pro tempore e pagina in lucem movi:
Articles about individuals who have held the office of [[Lord Chancellor of Great Britain]] since the [[Acts of Union 1707|Act of Union]] between [[England]] and [[Scotland]] in 1707. For holders of the predecessor offices see:
*[[:Category:Lord Chancellors of England]]
*[[:Category:Lord Chancellors of Scotland]] 
Ea fortasse ad Vicipaediam Anglicam relevant. 
[[Categoria:Domus Parium]] + ex en:[[Category:Chief justices by country|Great Britain]] 
Ea nobis relevant, sed "Domus Parium" nomen apud Google paene reperio: fortasse "Camera Parium"? Fortasse aliud quid? Categoriam "chief justices" laudabo, sed quo nomine? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)
*"Domus Parium" Google x 4
*"Camera Parium" x 118 (sed multi e Vicipaedia)
*"Aula Parium" x 2
*"Camera Parum" x 2 (+ 2 irrelevantes)
*"Domus Parum" x 10 irrelevantes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro tempore removi 

message: Is the dominus really part of the name of the office or just a courtesy, peculiar to English? (Jack Straw, after all, was not a lord.) Or was Hitler actually the Lord Chancellor of Germany but we don't call him that because we don't like him? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:16, 23 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They say Hitler always crops up in Wiki discussions sooner or later :) but he isn't involved here (I think). In the case of the UK cabinet post, "Lord Chancellor" is definitely the exact title as still used, although the last 3 (?) holders of the office have not been peers. I expect Parliament will give this some thought eventually. They haven't yet got around to updating the relevant page saying who is the current holder of the office, or to changing the photograph. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 23 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Dominus''
Disputatio Categoriae:Havaiani indigenae

message: I thought this word order would be better for filing and searching, and it's only in a smallish number of cases that we will need the word "indigenae" before names of gentes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:27, 14 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenae Havaiani or Havaiani indigenae? 

message: Is this category about ethnicity? We once had a discussion about whether to categorize people by ethnic origin/ethnicity here: Disputatio Categoriae:Actores Civitatum Foederatarum origine ethnica digesti#Should we get into this? --UV (disputatio) 21:29, 14 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun, isn't it, reading these old discussions :) I had quite forgotten that particular debate.

text: One of the concerns there was BLP. Briefly, it is always impossible to define ethnicity without use of POV, and this matters more than ever in the case of living subjects. I'd still argue strongly, in the case of living subjects, we shouldn't go that way.

text: However, we may well need categories for peoples (tribes, etc.). There surely should be an article about the indigenous Hawaiian people, and there could be a corresponding category, into which one would be free to place historical biographical articles when relevant. I think, somewhere else ... :), we agreed that categories for groups of people, families and tribes should not come under :Categoria:Homines. I'd suggest that this category is worth having, possibly renamed, and that its principal commentatio would be the not-yet-existing Populus Havaianus indigena, corresponding to :en:Native Hawaiians. How do others feel about that?

text: NB Populus and tribus in Latin are not necessarily ethnic, but rather cultural/social/political. You could join.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 15 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: : Fine, a category not confined in scope to individual persons sounds good. --UV (disputatio) 19:18, 15 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity?
Disputatio:Theodosius II

message: The family category "Dynastia Theodosiana" was suggested, but I doubt that Dynastia is right and I don't know that "Theodosianus -a -um" is used in Latin of this family group. If it is, fine; if not, I suggest "Theodosii progenies" (since their ancestor is Theodosius). Better suggestions welcome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:32, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dynastia is apparently wrong. Cassell's says to translate 'dynasty' thus: "use phrase with domus (e.g. domus Flavia)." Theodosii progenies is presumably just his descendants, in power or not, but a dynasty is a succession of related rulers, or a group or family in power. Hence here maybe Domus Theodosiana? IacobusAmor 01:17, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for confirming my suspicion of "Dynastia". We have a couple of old categories named thus, which we ought to change before any more join them. But I am not sure about domus (in spite of the weighty authority of Cassell's!). "Family/dynasty" is far from being the first or obvious meaning of the Latin word "domus", though I agree the sense does occur in classical authors. We have had categories named "Domus" too, one of which was :Categoria:Domus Flaviana, and that was a very unfortunate one because "Domus Flaviana" is the name of a house or palace built by Domitian (see e.g. Google). Hence I deleted it a while back. However, I admit that "Domus Flavia", precisely as Cassell's proposes, is probably not ambiguous.

text: :"Theodosii progenies" is logically correct in this particular case, because all these people are descendants of :en:Theodosius the Elder, but I am not saying it is necessarily the ideal choice. Any other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Let's forget it, then, till we have more of them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoria
Disputatio:Fontes Coloratenses

message: Two things: (1) Fons is singular, Springs plural; (2) 'springs' is sometimes aquae (pl.). Do we have a source for the Latin lemma? IacobusAmor 15:52, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic Hierarchy has "Diocesis Coloratensium Fontium", so I moved the page to that. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:26, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a good source and a good move, except that (Latin word order varying so beautifully in phrases of different structure) that source can't prescribe a word order for us. From "Dioecesis Coloratensium Fontium" you can equally well derive "Fontes Coloratenses", and that's the order we would usually prefer. Quid dicis, mi Lesgles? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You're right, and I found an instance of "Fontium Coloratensium", so I moved it thither. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:58, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma: Fons Coloratensis (Anglice: ''Colorado Springs'')
Disputatio Categoriae:Historia re digesta

message: :Note: This was originally about "Categoria:Campi historiae".
This category seems to  have the same interwiki links as :Categoria:Disciplinae historiae. Since you created both, Iacobe, what distinction do you intend? This seems an uncomfortable use of the Latin word "campus", especially in the plural. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:11, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither may be right. Portuguese goes with campos, but Bulgarian with дисциплини. The English category is "Fields of history," and it includes such categories as "Archaeology," "Labor history," "Legal history," "Maritime history," "History of medicine," "Medieval studies," "Military history," and "Music history." If "History" is a disciplina, then these "fields" must logically be subdisciplinae, but archaeologists might chafe at the notion that archaeology isn't a discipline unto itself. Maybe just the idea of the "topics" (res) of history would be better? Or something else? IacobusAmor 13:02, 17 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, for the present we have "Categoria:Historia re digesta". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Disputatio Categoriae:Salinae Saxonicae

message: An oportet categorias de universitatibus "Hallensi" et "Wittenbergensi" contribuere, et quo nomine, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 17 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Universitas Halensis Halae Saxonicae attribuenda, Wittenbergensis vel Leucorea Wittenbergae. Nova universitas nomine Academia Fridericiana Halensis cum Vitebergensi consociata mea opinio ambobus civitatibus attribuenda. --Alex1011 13:04, 17 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribuenda
Disputatio:Louysa Auriaca

message: Aut "Loisa" sicut imago, aut "Ludovica"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fons indicatus dicit Louysa, nominis multae aliae versiones extant. Louysa mihi videtur crebrius in usu fuisse nec facile mutari potest cum aliis Ludovicis. --Alex1011 11:47, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praenomen
Disputatio:Carolus III (imperator)

message: "Carolus Pinguis" has always worried me. This Latin name was copied from us (I think) into the English Wikipedia article, and has spread widely from there, but did we have a source? I can find a source for "Carolus crassus", which matches other people who were nicknamed "the fat" in medieval times, but I can't see any reliable sources for "Carolus pinguis". Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: carolus Crassus est nomen verum et authenticum huius viri [adfirmat 193.35.132.37, usor ignotus]
replies: text: :Gratias ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 19 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Electrum (metallum)

message: Immo, electrum est (1) sensu proprio, Anglice 'amber', et (2) sensu translato, 'an alloy of gold and silver, resembling amber in colour'. 71.178.146.178 02:00, 23 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Amice, (1) vide lemma, (2) melius rescribas, si tibi placet! 184.96.10.198 02:29, 23 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Electrum (Graece ἤλεκτρον) est metallum de argento auroque constans"
Disputatio:Liber II Regum

message: In Bibliis Sacris Tornaci divulgatis, nomen libri est Regum Liber II, vel plenius apud paginam 291 editionis anni 1938, Liber Secundus Samuelis Quem Nos Secundum Regum Dicimus. Sic alii libri (I, III, IV). Locutio Liber II Regum Anglice videtur 'Book of Two Kings' (h.e., duorum regum). IacobusAmor 16:27, 23 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontes horum titulorum addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:35, 23 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Ars coquinaria

message: there are no interwiki-links from the other languages to the Latin article (I just did the German article). How about deleting the page and then recreating it, so that the bots will do the job?--Chris1981 06:21, 24 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not necessary, I think. It's just that whoever created the page forgot to do what you've just done. I've moved it along, too, by linking from the English page. Now we've done that, the rest should happen automatically. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 24 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :there must be something wrong with the bots. When UV added the interwiki to the German article last juli  that already should have been enough for the bots to take care of the rest , but it wasn't. P.S.: I created the page Pecunia on Vicicitatio on Tuesday correctly with all interwikis and there too, still no mutual links.--Chris1981 11:47, 28 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Strange. I didn't realise UV had already done that; I have no explanation, then. Interwikis are meanwhile being added correctly for many other pages. Perhaps someone else who knows about these things will comment.

text: ::I can add, though, that there are big problems matching articles across wikis. French has two articles, :fr:Cuisson and :fr:cuisson alimentaire (it's hard to see why -- but then, what do the French know about cooking?), both of which share the same interwiki links to German and English. Meanwhile the German article links back not to either of those but to a third French article which doesn't (now) exist. If humans can't handle this, maybe it's too much to expect the bots to do so ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki-links 

message: In loco 
E4024 posuit thumb|center|100px|Chef Sophia Rodríguez Mata, Costa Rica.
dicens "Latin cook for the Latin page." 
(1) Revera? Latine loquitur? (2) Cur est illa imago huic melior? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:01, 16 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nova imago

message: Quaerens verbum ad 'au gratin' Latine dicendum non inveni. Nescio si aliquid verbum sit, sed propono 'crustatus' vel 'affriatus'. Credo quidem ut 'crustatus' melius sit (de verbo 'crustare'), quia etiam 'crustum' res in furno coctas designat propter crustam quae fit.--Spurius Minucius (disputatio) 14:22, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crustatus = 'au gratin'
Disputatio:Canua

message: Copied from Disputatio Usoris:Helveticus montanus
How is Canoe declined? Or is it indeclinable? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 23:16, 5 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct name is Canua. "Canoe" in Graesse must be a corrupt genitive ("Canoae") that may be traced back to the phrase "De Portu Canue" (= De Portu Canuae) in a document from 1030. See e.g. here. --Neander 00:39, 6 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :According to Merriam-Webster, English 'canoe' comes from French from New Latin canoa from Spanish from Arawakan, a Caribbean language, which was surely unknown in Europe in the year 1030. Are we sure of our etymology? ¶ Cassell's says to translate 'canoe' as cymba. IacobusAmor 12:18, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Before any further confusion arises, this was a discussion about the Latin name for Cannes (where the film stars go). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oh well. Canoe certainly looks like an English word! IacobusAmor 12:26, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canoe
Disputatio Formulae:IsidEtymCit

message: Thanks, O anonyme, for your work on this formula. Would it be possible to do something similar for Pliny? The present formula  (used on about 25 pages) doesn't deal with specific books or chapters and doesn't link to a text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 26 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks