lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Nix

message: Si quis habeat notionem dicendi "luge, slittino", laetus sim. --Marc mage 22:23, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Cum  via passiva utimur , si complementum agentis est res, solemus non uti praepositione "ab" ante complementum sed solum ablativo casu : ergo , credo oportere scribere passim: nisi pressione externa comprimatur;  cannonis producta; pulvere condensatur ; temperatura mutatur--Marc mage 21:37, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita est. Corrigam.--Rafaelgarcia 21:49, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

message: Nix casa( fallen snow) traducit nix quae cecicit. Tamen, in lingua latina , participium verborum intransitivorum( sine accusativo casu) non adhibetur  in hoc sensu. Solum adhibentur in modo passivo impersonali( curritur/cursum est : on court, on a couru). Nix casa ergo non existit ! Non est nullum exemplum in glossariis.  E contrario, verbum "labor" est deponens et participium habet sensum praeteritum. Quamquam sensus frequentissimus  est "slip/ glisser", pluria exempla ostendunt in vice verbi " cado" adhiberi. Oportet dicere in mea opinione, "nix lapsa", vel nix quae cecidit. --Marc mage 10:02, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Credo recte dicas. Gratias! Sed credo quoque illa lapsa "having slipped" nimis ambigua sit. Potius quam ambigua lapsa illa, nunc ad ideam "having fallen" praebendam tanto quae cecidit quanto cum cecidisset usus sum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:46, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nix casa vs nix lapsa 

message: Salve Marce. Gratias tibi propter omnia tua multa auxilia et labores in pagina Nix. Multae veritates argumentaque in illa pagina, autem, carent fontibus. Potes invenire fontes idoneas?--Rafaelgarcia 21:09, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: fontes

message: What about: pupulus niveus for snowman.
and: stiria should be added to those words concerning snow
thread_title:  Another word(s)
Disputatio:Antonius Ray

message: I think that would be "one who grates turnips". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:22, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been worried about this forever... Rapista?--Ioshus (disp) 02:02, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :The stem of the English is rapp- —the extra p deleted in the simplex as superfluous in indicating the pronunciation, as is frequent in English—so one would expect the same in any Latin formations: *rappator, *rappista.  Or so one would hope, at any rate.  —Mucius Tever 00:10, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yeah, now that you mention it, rapista reminds me of that celebrity jeopardy with Sean Connery, "I'll take the rapist for 400 Alex." "That's therapist, you idiot." Does rappista offend anyone? It follows a regular pattern of formation. Best we can do, might be.--Ioshus (disp) 00:24, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Seems OK to me. A female one would be rappistria or something like that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Sure, exactly.--Ioshus (disp) 13:32, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I presonally prefer "rapper". It might not follow exact Latin grammatic rules, but pop culture terms generally have the same word in almost every language. -Kedemus.

text: Yes, I would go with that. We have mangaca as a new agent noun, and I don't see why we shouldn't have rapper. Declension? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapator

message: I don't think the bass refers to the contrabasso, or basslines, so much as the gran cassa (although given the long decay of the 808 the lines can blur). But I don't know what you call a bass drum in Latin. 71.141.101.92 23:09, 7 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miami bass
Disputatio:Lucianus Floridi

message: A colleague of Mehmet Murat İldan? He's had a go at Bengali, which is enterprising. Needs to work on the Pashto, though. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:53, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence has been supplied for "Floridus" so I'll move to "Floridi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 6 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwikipedian
Disputatio:Idahum

message: "Xylopolis"?? -Branddobbe 03:49, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boise ductus est de verbo Francogallico Bois quae Latine "lignum" significat. Xylopolis est, verbis Graecis exactis, "ligni urbs"...--Ioshus (disp) 04:35, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Huius nominis, BTW, index civitatum urbiumque CFA Iohannis Traupman est fons.  Si -opolis adhibes, haec sunt consequentia... —Mucius Tever 00:16, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: Sententia civitatis Idahi est, Esto perpetua, quae indicat nomen femininum. Estne forma nominis huius heterclita? Idaho, Idahonis, forsitan? Rwflamingus 15:49, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certe perpetua hic cum verbo civitas congruit. —Mucius Tever 03:57, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen heteroclitum?
Disputatio:Franciscus Petrarcha

message: "apud Arretium, quo parvam villam rusitcam habebat", melius : "apud Arretium, ubi parvam villam rusitcam habebat"
replies: text: Rusticam? IacobusAmor 13:55, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: Cum h?--Ioshus (disp) 22:09, 4 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  petrarcHa?
Disputatio:Ignis

message: Interesting question. I'd have thought unus would agree with ignis, because in A est B ab/de/ex/in/post/trans C, our B would want to agree with A, not C (the gender of a noun governed by a preposition having nothing necessarily to do with the gender of other nouns in a sentence). Is it idiomatically otherwise? Did Romans argue about it, as English-speakers argue about "a number of X are/is"? IacobusAmor 14:17, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure everyone squabbles about their own language =]. What I was thinking is "Ignis est unum (elementum) ex quattuor elementis." If you supply the assumed head noun, there is no question as to whether or not unum should be neuter. It's ambiguous when you leave it out. I wish I were at home near some books that talk about attraction of adjectives...--Ioshus (disp) 14:28, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, that's plausible. I was just wondering. (I wonder a lot.) IacobusAmor 14:30, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Unum, I don't see how it could be otherwise (well, that's an exageration, unus by "attraction" as above). Phrase it more simply and you'll see: Ignis est unum elementum, not Ignis est unus elementum. --Iustinus 18:59, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unus

message: Quomodo dicatis " essence , benzina, gasolina" usus sum benzina ? --Marc mage 11:01, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sane legi benzinum, non benzina. Reginaldus dicit "liquor ignifers".--Ioscius (disp) 15:23, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: gasoline

message: Re: ... By which I take it fire is no longer considered one of the elements in alchemy?   Of course, it's certainly not a chemical element, but the traditional non-chemical elements more directly correspond to what are now called states of matter (cf. classical element).   —Mucius Tever 17:42, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Pantocrator 07:35, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Putabatur
Disputatio:Pittacus Mytilenaeus

message: "decennium" not "decennio": accusative case for length of time, ablative for time within which. -- 199.245.199.129

message: Forma Pitticus paret erroneus. Habemus fontes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:43, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
cum scripsissem hanc paginam, sic erroneus ego scripsi Pitticus pro Pittacus in festina multa. iam mutatum habeo illud nomen, sed nescio quis adderet iterum.  - Sempronius Tyro
replies: text: Semproni, nonne rationem creare vis? Vide . --UV 23:52, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
aio ego! sed ad hoc momentum, malo creare paginas! sed tamen creabo rationem mox. --Sempronius Tyro
thread_title: Orthographia
Disputatio:Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella

message: I libri dell'opera di Columella sono XII più il De  arboribus Mizardellorsa di  it.wikipedia

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 4. Lipsiae 1906, p. 238 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis
Disputatio:Atlantis

message: Correxi "post incursionem repupulsatum ab his" in " incursione repulsa"--Marc mage 09:56, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: "Plinius negavit regnum Atlantis olim omnino fuisse"... 
Non veram esse.
Salutem
--Georgeos Diaz-Montexano 12:33, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgi, gratias ago pro emendatione, sed hanc sententiam " Atlantis non fictam commenticiamque fabulam sed veram historiam, ex Platonem." minime intellego. Potes in alia quadam lingua explicare hic in pagina disputationis?

text: George, thanks for your emendation, but I don't understand this sentence. Could you please write it in some other language, here on the disputatio page? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Andrius, "NON FICTAM COMMENTICIAMQUE FABULAM SED VERAM HISTORIAM" (ex Chalcidium) ex Graecum "ΤΟ ΤΕ ΜΗ ΠΛΑΣΘΕΝΤΑ ΜΥΤΗΟΝ ΑΛΛ' ΑΛΗΘΙΝΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΝ" (Platonis Timaeum 26e) translationem est.

text: :In Anglica lingua: "is not a fictitious nor invented fable, but a true story".

text: :Etiam "non fictam a nobis fabulan, sed veran historiam" (Marsilio Ficino), vel "Et non fictam fabulam, sed veram historiam esse" (ex Cornarium).

text: :Sed vero "ΤΟ ΤΕ ΜΗ ΠΛΑΣΘΕΝΤΑ ΜΥΤΗΟΝ ΑΛΛ' ΑΛΗΘΙΝΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΝ" in anglica lingua: "Is not a fabricated myth but a true story" (translatio mea)

text: :Salutem, --Georgeos Diaz-Montexano 14:08, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enmendatio... 

message: quod est hacim?--Jondel 13:08, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse hacim re = hac in re. IacobusAmor 13:47, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse. Invenire in athirdway, etc non possum.--Jondel 13:53, 3 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

text: :Fas es et mutabo sicut dices.--Jondel 13:03, 5 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hacim?

message: Salve.
Nomen 'Atlantis insula' falsam sonat. Esse necesse est 'Atlantis', tum insula nota est ut modo 'Atlantis'. Quid censetis?
Donatello (disputatio) 01:39, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Censeo te recte monuisse. Movi igitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:23, 29 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi. :)

text: :Donatello (disputatio) 15:54, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC).
thread_title:  Nomen commentatiois
Disputatio:Nadsat

message: Here's what Morgan gives for "Gypsie":
replies: text: 711 gypsy  hamaxobius, i* m. (LRL), zingarus, i* m. (Bartal s.v. neorusticus), athinganus, i* (Anc. Gr.)
Athinganus is of course the ultimate etymon of the various tzig-/zing- names, but unfortunately it means "untouchable." --Iustinus 03:26, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
And I have no idea how "Here's Mo" ended up in my edit summary. --Iustinus 03:27, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, thanks, I was hoping someone would chip in on that. Athinganus may be OK -- Roma do have strict purity rules so it is not inappropriate. Zingarus is apparently taken from Spanish but I don't know the ultimate etymology (it may be the same). Hamaxobius would mean "caravan-dweller", i.e. "traveller", and therefore more appropriate as a general designation of multiple groups rather than of ethnic and linguistic Roma. I would like to avoid using derivatives of "Roma" if that's possible, because we have so many other uses for those words already! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: :Re-reading your post, I think you confirm that zingarus comes from the same root, as I suspected. Incidentally, tell Morgan that athinganus is not exactly anc. Gr. (if this is significant to him). All the citations come from mid Byzantine sources. Because one of these is Etymologicum Magnum, the word gets into Liddell and Scott, but it shouldn't really. Unluckily, the word was apparently used for an obscure group of heretics (still in mid Byzantine times) before it was applied to Roma: see Du Cange s.v. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tzigana
Disputatio:Perth Amboy

message: What were you trying to say? What I get out of the original text—Habet area cuncta 15.5 km², cum terrae 12.4 km² et aquae 3.1 km²—is 'The entire ground has 15.5 km², with the land's 12.4 km² and the water's 3.1 km²'. Is that right? This use of cum seems odd, but maybe one of our learned amigos can correct it. IacobusAmor 15:40, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to say the total area is 15.5km^2, with 12.4km^2 of land and 3.1 km^2 of water.Rafaelgarcia 12:52, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Area cuncta

message: Which one is correct?  I got Manhata from the webpage Manhata...Should one move that page to Manahata?Rafaelgarcia 12:52, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the most regular Latin form should be, but the earliest attestation (from 1609), is Manna-hata. See the entry for 2 October: 
http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-history-hs216a1v,0,919043.story?coll=ny-lihistory-navigation. IacobusAmor 13:03, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, Manhata has a seventeenth-century attestation on the page itself: Hofmann, which gives Manhata as the Latin version of what is vulgo "Manhate", also without the Mana-.  (Did Juet write that "Manna-hata" line in Latin?)

text: :Incidentally, if one wants to work off modern forms, it seems clear that Manhattan is these vowel-ended forms with the adjective -an ending, i.e. insula Manhattana 'the Manhattan island' or 'the island of *Manhatta.'  (But we went through this with Reykiavica/Reykiavicana.) —Mucius Tever 01:47, 10 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manhata vs. Manahata
Disputatio:Connie Francis

message: I do not think that the fan site http: www.conniefrancis.nl is spam. However, When I wanted to add the url again, the MediaWiki spamfilter rejected this url. BTW, I am not a fan ... ;-) --Rolandus 21:31, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Rolandus 21:58, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: www.conniefrancis.nl
Disputatio:Exonia

message: I had a feeling this list was too long. I took out:
replies: text: Adescancestrensis, Excecestrensis, Excestrensis, Excestriensis, Exonensis, Exoniensis, Exoviensis
because they are adjectives, and

text: Isca Cumnoriorum, Isca Cumnamorum, Isca Dumnuniorum
because they are misspellings of Isca Dumnoniorum (which was the real Roman name). Is that OK? If there is a serious source for any of these alternatives, someone may want to put them back, but I feel there's no point in listing spelling mistakes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative names
Disputatio Formulae:Not verifiable

message: What would be a good Latin name for such a template?
I am thinking of using this template in cases such as those referred to in [[Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio/Index magistrorum linguae Latinae/Austria]].
<div style="background-color:#ffcccc;padding:25px;margin:25px;">
<!-- Problem -->'''This article currently does not contain sufficient information that would allow its content to be verified.'''
<!-- Explanation -->[[:en:Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset#Guidelines for writing high quality articles|Verifiability]] is one of the core content policies of wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

message: <!-- Solution -->Possible solutions:
* Expand the article so that it describes the subject with sufficient accuracy as to allow verification.
* Add references to reputable sources to the article.
* Add interwiki links to articles about the same subject on other wikipedias.
* Or ask for help, maybe in the [[Vicipaedia:Taberna]].
Note: Using the template {{fn|Fontes desiderati}} is not a solution in itself, since this does not remedy the problem.

message: [[Imago:Keep tidy ask.svg|30px]] <!-- Policy -->If this problem is not resolved within one week, the page will be deleted.
</div>
--[[Usor:UV|UV]] 10:37, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: One week seems short to me. The template should have a timestamp (maybe we have to use "subst:" then, see :en:Wikipedia:Template substitution). There should be the option to use  . We should give an article time to grow and to maturate. During this time it should be clear that the article has a problem, thus the template. If - after some time - it looks like a bad article will not become acceptible, it should be deleted. The question is, how patient we want to be. I think we should be very patient. --Rolandus 11:03, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, one week is probably a bit too short. But in many cases, an article is created by an IP which will either come back rather quickly to expand the article or which will not come back any time soon, see the example at Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio/Index magistrorum linguae Latinae/Austria. I would thus not make the timespan much longer than two weeks. What do you think? --UV 12:53, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, for the case you described, one or two weeks will be enough. But we should give registered users more time: In this case there should be signals that a registered user is interested in fixing the problem, maybe   or (better) a specific template which says that someone is trying to make the article verifyable. For the second template we could have a longer period than one week. This is just an idea, it has to be improved ... ;-) So we make a difference between A) "there is a problem" and B) "there is a problem which is going to be fixed". Formula:Not verifiable could offer this option of using the other template and we would know that someone (to whom we can talk) cares about the problem. --Rolandus 13:14, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Ok, for registered users that would be fine with me. --UV 19:23, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patience
Disputatio:Shakira

message: Shakirae cognomen legitur "Merabak". Sed verum cognomen est Mebarak, b pro r et r pro b.

message: Haec iucundissima est paginarum Vicipaediae quas quidem adhuc vidi. Imprimis versiones inscriptionum canticorum in deliciis habeo. Euge! --Ceylon 23:32, 9 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gratulor
Disputatio:Reccopolis

message: How do you decline Recopolis?--Xaverius 17:15, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally as follows,

text: Nom: Recopolis

text: Gen: Recopolis

text: Acc: Recopolin, Recopolim (Recopolem)

text: Dat: Recopoli

text: Abl: Recopoli

text: Loc: Recopoli

text: --Iustinus 18:38, 24 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: De: Conditio urbium erat potestas imperatorum Romanorum ut, urbe condita, Liuvigildus cum imperatores se compararet. Amice, "dubsig" removisti, sed ecce sententiae Anglice significationem: 'The pickling of the cities was being the Roman emperors' authority, so that, once the city had been founded, Liuvigildus when emperors he might compare himself'. IacobusAmor 10:44, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: gosh, sorry...

text: Creatio urbium erat potestas Romanorum imperatorum; ita, Reccopole condita, Liuvigildus se cum imperatoribus comparavit--Xaverius 11:17, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Noscendi studia
Disputatio:Arthurus (rex)

message: :en:Nennius, the oldest source I believe, seems to have Arthur as his name in Latin. So do the :en:Annales Cambriae. I have certainly seen Arthurus and Arturus but I don't recall seeing Arturius. Is there a good source for this spelling? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 25 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arturius is a spelling used by Ralph of Cogeshall, in the Chronicon Anglicanum, and in the Itinerary of John Leland. However, I agree that the name should be changed to Arthurus as the primarly name in the article, since that spelling is used by Geoffrey of Monmouth and is more widespread. -Sempronius Tyro
Puto "regem X" iustiorem verborum ordinem esse, namque apud Tullium haec inter alia praebentur: rex Deiotarus (Pro rege Deiotaro 12), rex Priscus (Div. 1.32), rex Hostilius (Nat. 2.9), rex Prusias (Div. 2.52), rex Ptolomaeus (Sest. 57), cett. Neander 16:30, 6 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

text: De stylo Latino minime dissentio, sed in titulis Vicipaedianis utilius est a nomine proprio incipere: ita in capsa scribens "Artu..." hanc commentationem cito reperis. Sed fortasse, secundum normas nostras, Arturus rex sive Arturus (rex). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 6 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quae cum ita sint, quin ergo scribamus: Arthurus (rex). Neander 18:48, 6 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Video Donatello motum ad titulum "Rex Arthurus" suasisse. Ego etiamnunc "Arthurus (rex)" malo ob rationes quas supra dedi. Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: Numquam haec disputatio ante movebam legebam, ignosce me. :) Aliquis sit an fontes veteres vel nova solus Arthurus vel Rex Arthurus latine dicunt? Aliae rei, aliae linguae "Rex Arthurus" eum appellant, ita censeo hoc nomen adhiberi oportet. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:42, 20 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: : Ut supra per exempla philologica significavi, "rex Arthurus" dictio per se usitatior est quam "Arthurus rex" (cum autem "Arthurus rex Britannorum" melius dicatur, praesertim in titulis, quam "Britannorum rex Arthurus"). Equidem tamen Andreae nostro assentior dicenti utilius esse a nomine proprio incipere, quod lectores, qui apud nos aliquid de rege Arthuro legere velint, in quaerendi capsa probabilius "Art..." quam "rex ..." scripturi sint. Itaque "Arthurus (rex)" mihi quoque placet. Neander (disputatio) 18:28, 20 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: His name

message: An fontem habemus cognominis vel agnominis "Pendragon"? Saepe Uthero datur, rarius (nisi fallor) Arthuro.  sine fonte inseruit; ergo deleo. Licet bonis fontibus citatis restituere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 14 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pendragon
Disputatio:Oleum

message: "fluidus" est adiectivus, inscripsi "humor" pro " fluidus. --Marc mage 00:21, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: secundum () Oleum est quodvis oleum. Oleum Olivae dicitur invicem Olivum -i? Moveo paginam?--Massimo Macconi 06:49, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scriptoribus antiquioribus "oleum" erat semper liquor ex olivis factus nisi verbum aliud appositum sit. Vides nexum etymologicum inter "oleum" et "oliva"! Sed hodie habemus plura olea. Quid facere? Romani dicerent "oleum ex olivis" tautologiam esse. "Olivum" est verbum rarissimum; non habet eum sensum quem Campanini attribuit (ut scimus, in lexicis fere omnibus pullulant errores!).

text: Fortasse debemus habere duos articulos:
# Oleum (=oleum ex olivis)
# Olea (=olea omnia, olea in genere) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oleum - i aut  Olivum - i? 

message: ..propter explicationem. Novam paginam creabo. --Massimo Macconi 09:37, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tibi gratia ago..