lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Index provinciarum Romanarum Imperii

message: Nomina, annos, successiones provinciarum sumpsi e Vicipaedia Theodisca (:de:Liste der römischen Provinzen bis Diokletian); minora addidi ex aliis Vicipaediis. Etiam usus sum mappa 1 e libro A. H. M. Jones, Later Roman Empire.
Si paginam non habebamus de provincia, creavi stipulam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:55, 2 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initium paginae

message: I don't know whether Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis belong in this list or not. Other Wikipedias are not very helpful. Some say that these provinces came into existence (by splitting Dacia Aureliana) a very short time after its creation in 270/271. (Incidentally, the name is a nostalgic reminiscence of the real Dacia, which was wholly abandoned by Rome in 271.)  It seems clear, however, that Dacia Aureliana (usually called simply Dacia) was a single province under the Diocletianic reorganization in 296/298; and it definitely split into the two halves (Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis) under Theodosius in 395.
So are the supposed Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis of the late 3rd century (which I got out of the German list of provinces) ghosts? Was it not "a very short time" but in fact "more than a century" after the creation of Dacia Aureliana (in 270/271) that the province was split into these two halves (in 395)? Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the present, right or wrong, I am taking it that these two names (Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis) are post-Diocletianic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think I've got an answer. In the same way that the later divissions talk about a Noricum Ripensis (on the ripa of the danube) and a Noricum Mediterraneum (not on the mediterranean, but at least not by the danube) out of Noricum, most probably it hapens the same with these Daciae. And if in the fifth century Alaric is requesting to govern as a foedus both Norica, I guess that the same must have happened with Dacia, that the divission was kept--Xaverius 08:02, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, that's true, the division may have been remembered from the late 3rd century and reinstated in the late 4th. However, in administrative history, that doesn't often happen. Once you've done away with a boundary (especially a very newly-established one) you don't usually bring back the same boundary 100 years later. So let's wait to see if anyone has real evidence that these two provinces existed at any time in the 3rd century. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:34, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dilemma in eastern Bulgaria
Disputatio:Index provinciarum Rei Publicae Romanae

message: Couldn't help looking in. Nice page, nice map. Perhaps you've already noticed, there's one disagreement. The map doesn't number Sicily, the oldest province; instead it includes Numidia, which (I think) was not yet a province at this period. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but I'm wrong. According to :en:Numidia in 46 BC "Numidia became briefly the province of Africa Nova until Augustus restored Juba II (son of Juba I) after the Battle of Actium." There's something I didn't know. So it's fine; it just wants a number for Sicily. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detail
Disputatio:Hydrargyrum

message: Hmmm, hydrargentum does get a signficiant amoun tof google hits. None on books.google.com, but one on scholar.google.com. So I guess it's a real word. But surely this shoudl be under hydrargyrum, with the actually more classical argentum vivum listed as an alternate. --Iustinus 01:06, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely. And it most surely shouldn't have as its lemma Hydrarguntum. Note the first u. IacobusAmor 22:08, 21 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ut Iustinus noster proposuit nomen hydrargyrum primo loco posui. Pagina redirectiva "hydrargyrum" deleta, hanc paginam ad hydrargyrum movebo. --Fabullus 03:56, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quod nunc factum est. Gratias, Rafaelgarcia! --Fabullus 04:28, 29 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Hydrargentum" removi quia fontes extravicipaedianos non repperi. Si sunt, s.v.p. rursus hoc verbum addite et fontem citate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 15 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: No more, hopely! Mercury is extremely toxic!
replies: text: Yes, it is, but yes, they are, see :en:Mercury (element). --UV (disputatio) 22:36, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricantur?
Disputatio:Dioecesis

message: :Volo paginam diffindere, sic:
#Dioecesis: Sunt permulti nexus ad hanc paginam e paginis dioecesum religiosarum, et neceese est talem paginam habere.
#Tabula administrativa Romana Diocletiana: tabula erit utilissima si nexus facimus e paginis de Imperio et de provinciis.
replies: text: Alii quid cogitant? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nescivi antea, quia nexus carebant, sed nunc scio eandem rem factam apud Vicipaediam Anglicam heri (die 3 Iunii)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
OK: id feci. Habemus nunc:
#Dioecesis, pagina discretiva, quia pagina de hac re iam habuimus apud Episcopatus
#Dioecesis Imperii Romani cum indicibus dioecesum (ut hic antea)
#Tabula successionis provinciarum Romanarum (ut hic antea)
-- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paginam diffindere?
Disputatio:Gaius Sallustius Crispus

message: Estne melius "vir publicus et historiographus Romanus FUIT"???
replies: text: Melius etiam "fuit vir publicus et historiographus Romanus". Corrigi. Gratias! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: I changed to Catilinae coniuratio, which is the title devised by Kurfess in his edition, based on the text of Cat. 4.3. The titles given in the manuscripts are Bellum Catilinarium and Liber Catilinarius, which don't (I think) carry conviction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:57, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus

message: Heri ego scripsi partem de vita Sallustii. Cur nunc non est? Quid erat malo? Erat percorrecta, in mea opinione, certe melius quam nihil habere scriptum.
Firma: Petrusrexomnium, 24 Ianuarii MMVIII.
thread_title:  De vita Sallustii 

message: Attributio imaginis as Sallustium auctoritate omnino caret. Substituo. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 18:54, 10 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. Est fortasse Salus; non est Sallustius.

text: Bene substituisti, Enzian ... sed hic habemus, nisi fallor, meliorem eiusdem nummi imaginem. Pro certo is qui hunc nummum confecit "Sallustium autorem" depingere voluit; quo aevo, nescio. Anno circiter 300 fortasse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:10, 10 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imago
Disputatio Vicipaediae:FAQ

message: Propter quod bonum Linguae Latinae est. -> Due to the good of the latin language?--Rafaelgarcia 01:11, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clumsy, right? Vide iterum.--Ioshus (disp) 01:38, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :How about Linguae Latinae fovendae (dativus finalis)? --Neander 02:10, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Still mulling it over...this FAQ seems to be written pretty colloquially. Maybe we should keep it that way. Your idea is elegant, though =] --Ioshus (disp) 02:35, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: ::Maybe we should discuss the answer fisrt...--Ioshus (disp) 02:44, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Videntur mi rationes nonnullae:
#Amamus linguam
#Amamus linguas
#Amamus discere
#Amamus docere
#Amamus peritias studiorum super ordinatorum meliorare
--Ioshus (disp) 02:44, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationes a te, Ioshe, allatae quam optimae quidem sunt, sed timeo, ne tam generali argumento conceptae sint, ut vix ad linguam solam Latinam pertineant. Puto Rafaelgarciam rectissime iudicare, cum Irenaeo nostro "Mea opinione" dicit "quisque habet suas rationes distinctas". Suam vim et suum usum linguae Latinae cuique esse existimo. Itaque, si "Cui bono sit lingua Latina" quaeratur, respondere liceat: "Suum bonum unusquisque/unaquaeque e lingua Latina capiat!" --Neander 22:36, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Praeferro tuam primam, cui bono sit lingua Latina. Brevis est, et ad rem raptim accedit.--Ioshus (disp) 23:52, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cur?
Disputatio Formulae:Pp-scin-tu

message: :Vide (etiam) Disputatio Formulae:Scintu.

message: In the same way that we have a list of our former paginae mensium, I think we should have a list with our "scin tu...?"--Xaverius 22:30, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
===test phase===
...Matriti cibum 15 Maii clarum esse Socolatam cum encytis?
...coniuratos Vambam regem Hispaniae totondisse et in habitus monacalis vestivisse ne rexisset?
--Xaverius 22:30, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
vide --Xaverius 09:41, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old "Scin tu...?"

message: ...Matriti cibum 15 Maii clarum esse Socolatam cum encytis?
...coniuratos Vambam regem Hispaniae totondisse et in habitus monacalis vestivisse ne rexisset?
--Xaverius 22:30, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
vide --Xaverius 09:41, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: test phase
Disputatio:Litaniae Sanctorum

message: This doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article to me, more like a collection of prayers. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:45, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much straight text?

message: some more information about these prayer and according to the page of the Catholic Enclopedia in each part of the prayer an explanation about the structure of the litany. In any case I believe it could be useful also as a kind of "index" of the more important saints of the Catholic Church. The same page is also on de.wiki and catholic encyclopedia (cfr. nexus externus) as an article about "Litany of the Saints" described as the model of all other litanies, of great antiquity. An other possibility is to transfer the straight test to wikifons and to maintain here only the information about this important form of prayer.--Massimo Macconi 19:56, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think generous quotations from these prayers would be fine, so long as their history and other explanations are interspersed! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will add 

message: Partem texti transtuli sub vicifonte, hic servavi solum partem primam a invocationibus Deum et Sanctis constituta et initia aliarum partium. Puto servatam partem de facto indicem praecipuorum sanctorum Ecclesiae Catholicae esse--Massimo Macconi 05:35, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  transfert
Disputatio Formulae:Pp-eruditio

message: Do we want an image here? Maybe a stylus and tabula?--Ioshus (disp) 01:38, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a particular one that would be suitable in mind? It needs to be wider than tall to work.--Rafaelgarcia 02:04, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :There might be some ... ;-)
70px

text: :If we had a bit more text the image could be also taller than wide.

text: :--Rolandus 07:05, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I like the third one.--Ioshus (disp) 13:55, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Hey Neander...this licet is bothering me. I thought the sentiment was to encourage them to come, more than just tell them they can. What do you think?--Ioshus (disp) 23:15, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also licet is more difficult a term for a beginning student. Likewise the language changes made to the Nexus section make it more difficult for a beginning student. Even if it is better latin isn't simplicity an important thing.--Rafaelgarcia 01:27, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, the problem with debere (to which I reacted) is that it's methinks too commanding and imperious in tone. If licet non libet, a more friendly and less enjoining verb must be found, imho. --Neander 01:55, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :What about using Quin? For example: Quin et magistri et discipuli nostram Paginam eruditionis visitent? This would be a friendly'ish imperative.

text: :(forgot to sign) --Neander 02:03, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quin sounds great to me, or quidni, but for this one section, I kind of like to keep the latin as simple as possible, no subjunctive. I see your point on debere, I just picked it because I think it is a simple construction.

text: ::Maybe we can rethink the whole sentence... maybe something like Magistri et discipuli, qui volunt linguam Latinam discere aut docere, possunt nostram Portam eruditionis visitare.?--Ioshus (disp) 02:12, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Pragmatically, your proposal meets your own objection ('The sentiment was to encourage them to come, more than just tell them they can'.) But perhaps your sentence is easier to understand for a novice. So, it's all right with me. --Neander 02:30, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ha! You're right it does! This is what happens when you try and write a simple Latin sentence... Surely we can come up with something simple, yet exhortative...--Ioshus (disp) 02:37, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Qualcosa di più semplice ed ispirante, eh? What do you think of this: Magistri, discipuli! Bene venite nostram Paginam eruditionis visitatum! --Neander 01:57, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Visitate! ? --Ioshus (disp) 02:30, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Nope, venite visitatum (supine accusative) is the proper way to say 'come to visit'. And bene adds the 'welcome' element. --Neander 02:41, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  licet
Disputatio:Portus Principi

message: I feel doubtful about the move to Portus Principi. OK, French can sometimes use the preposition à for possession (c'est à ma soeur) but that doesn't have anything to do with Latin: in Latin we use the genitive (sororis meae est). And I have found a reference for Portus Principis: . What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That nexus looks authoritative, and googling turns up several additional authoritative sources, including the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Italian wiki; however, we need disambiguation between this Portus Principis and the Portus Principis in the Philippines. IacobusAmor 13:34, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Portus Principis

message: I feel doubtful about the move to Portus Principi. OK, French can sometimes use the preposition à for possession (c'est à ma soeur) but that doesn't have anything to do with Latin: in Latin we use the genitive (sororis meae est). And I have found a reference for Portus Principis: . What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That nexus looks authoritative, and googling turns up several additional authoritative sources, including the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Italian wiki; however, we need disambiguation between this Portus Principis and the Portus Principis in the Philippines. IacobusAmor 13:34, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Verba disputata

message: I would say terminus technicus is acceptable for "technical term", even if not (I assume) classical. It's a pretty widespread idiom among classicists of all languages. --Iustinus 19:10, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused ... I must have missed terminus and terminus technicus ... I remember that the word appellatio was suggested. But can the sole word terminus be used in the sense of term/expression/phrase or is it a false friend?  --Rolandus 19:31, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: terminus

message: Why filma should be so disputa. At least the other ones are Latin words... film is a German root, sure, cognate with Greek pelma, but still...--Ioshus (disp) 19:35, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i still barely see 

message: Shouldn't all this be presented in latin rather than english? English, German, Spanish, etc... translations being provided are fine but Latin should be the main language, I think.--Rafaelgarcia 16:23, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Rafael, of course you are right, I have emailed you regarding this.--Ioshus (disp) 16:39, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, it should :-) --Rolandus 18:17, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this all be in latin?
Disputatio:Veritas

message: Mi Raphael, vidi te in animo habere hanc emendare. Quaeso, precor, obsecro feras opem! Confiteor in maxima parte esse iocum, raptim scriptam. Modo feci ut nexus ruber sit factus caeruleus. --Ioshus (disp) 02:34, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus

message: Primum lemma restituebamus ut rem disceptemus. ("Wiki user wiki," utens ignotus, lemma veritas in verum commutaverat.) Quattuor rationes pro veritate offerimus. (1) Robertus Ogilvie, in libro cui nomen Horae Latinae: Studies in Synonyms and Syntax, nos monet (p. 288):
replies: text: Veritas, truth in a general and abstract sense; verum, that which is true, the reality, the fact. What is truth? quid est veritas? he spoke the truth,, verum dixit; he investigates truth, veritatem investigat; he investigates the truth (of something), verum investigat.
Res quidem in commentario nostro abstracta (ergo veritas), non solida (verum, quod verum est), nobis videtur. (2) Vicipaediae Romanicae cognato vocabuli veritatis, non veri, utuntur. (3) Sententia Universitatis Harvardianae est "Veritas," non "Verum," et Universitatis Yalensis "Lux et Veritas." (4) Pontius Pilatus (in Evangelio secundum Ioannem, 18:38) rogat "Quid est veritas" (res abstracta), non "Quid est verum" (res solida). ¶ Qui nobis vocabulum verum suadere audebit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 30 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

text: Profecto recte, o Iacobe, de hac re cogitasti! Neander (disputatio) 21:24, 30 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: Legens istam sententiam, respiciens ad fontem eius Aristotelicum attractum, haereo, cur non pronomine relativo quod est (i.e. ea, quae sunt) utendum esse oporteat. --Bavarese (disputatio)
replies: text: Si hic de quidditate agitur, nonne dicendum sit dicere, quid quod est ...? Respondentibus gratias ago, nam ego philosophus non sum.--Bavarese (disputatio) 14:42, 4 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Puto te recte dicere: "quod", vel "id quod". Aliter hac versione utere possumus: "Dicere namque ens non esse, aut non-ens esse, falsum: ens autem esse, et non-ens non esse, verum est." Lesgles (disputatio) 20:37, 5 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicere quid est ...?
Disputatio:Historia

message: Historia israelitica non est subpagina historiae Italicae, sed constat historiam spezialem et in temporibus antiquis et in temporibus modernis esse.
thread_title: E pagina [[Historia Israelica]]

message: Non intellego. Quis dixit historiam Israelicam subpaginam esse historiae Italicae? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non ego etiam...--Ioshus (disp) 15:13, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :nec ego... fortasse paginam delendam esse?--Xaverius 15:22, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Historia Israelica est vel non est "subpagina" historiae Italicae??? UV, cur "delenda" meum delevisti? Haec pagina manifeste est iocus. IacobusAmor 01:08, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: I see it now. It's no joke: just a highly inexplicit but justified comment. On the page Historia, Historia Israelica really is formatted as if subordinate to Historia Italica. The user could have changed that, of course ... I have now done it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: E pagina [[Disputatio:Historia Israelica]]

message: Golradir 00:38, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: E pagina [[aevum]]

message: === Antiquitas ===
* Aegyptus antiqua
* Aenea aetas
* Historia Graeca
* Praehistoricum aevum
* Roma antiqua
** Imperium Romanum
** Imperium Romanum Orientale
* Sumer
=== Medium Aevum et Aevum litterarum artiumque renatarum ===
* Aevum litterarum artiumque renatarum
* Schisma
* Imperium Romanum Sacrum
* Medium Aevum
* Reformatio
* Revolutio Franciae
* Vikingus
=== Aetas Industrialis ===
* Bellum Coreanum
* Bellum Frigidum
* Bellum Orbis Terrarum I
* Bellum Orbis Terrarum II
* Bellum Vietnamense 
* Holocaustus
thread_title:  Aeva 

message: * Aegyptus antiqua
* Aenea aetas
* Historia Graeca
* Praehistoricum aevum
* Roma antiqua
** Imperium Romanum
** Imperium Romanum Orientale
* Sumer
thread_title:  [[Antiquitas]] 

message: * Aevum litterarum artiumque renatarum
* Schisma
* Imperium Romanum Sacrum
* Medium Aevum
* Reformatio
* Revolutio Franciae
* Vikingus
thread_title:  [[Medium Aevum]] et [[Aevum litterarum artiumque renatarum]] 

message: * Bellum Coreanum
* Bellum Frigidum
* Bellum Orbis Terrarum I
* Bellum Orbis Terrarum II
* Bellum Vietnamense 
* Holocaustus
thread_title:  [[Aetas Industrialis]]
Disputatio:Thích Nhất Hạnh

message: refugiato deos not seem to be a true word and does not come in my dictionary. Would "obses" work?--Xaverius 16:17, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the text, refugiato seems to be in the wrong case, so I left it as a puzzlement for the wary. ;) IacobusAmor 16:29, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :It seems to be the Italian word rifugiato with the prefix only (!) Latinized. If we wanted a similar word we could coin refugatus from fugare "put to flight," but in fact that is hardly necessary because there are plenty of good Latin wors for this concept: profugus is probably best, there's also refugus, and refuga (both can be masculine). Confugus and convena to my min suggest a refugee camp, or at the very least an emphasis on the destination rather than the origin. --Iustinus 16:50, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Profugus is nice, certainly. Reminds one of Aeneas, as described in the first lines of the Aeneid. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Exactly. Even if it were not the mot juste, no Classicist would be able to resist using it anyway ;) --Iustinus 17:18, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Speaking of which: what's the latest on Laviniaque vs. Lavinaque? G. P. Goold favored the latter, but the weight of received opinion has tended to favor the former. IacobusAmor 18:22, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for your valuable insights Xaverius, Amor, Dalby, an Iustinus. The word 'refugiato' came from Interlingua, which I overlooked. profugus is perfect. I will be correcting thus.--Jondel 12:47, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refugiato