Disputatio Vicipaediae:Translatio hebdomadalis

message: Isn't it easier to use the arrow signs
* →
* ←
* ↔
instead of their math equivalents, as there would no longer be the need to process math or to load an image?
Any objections against me changing that here and on meta? Or do the arrow signs look too tiny? --UV 23:45, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the arrows are fine, I saw the math equivalents somewhere and decided they worked, but the better solution is always, well, better...--Ioshus Rocchio 03:04, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

text: Bene videtur mihi quoque. Sinister Petrus 20:19, 6 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrows 

message: Another thing: currently, most links on our templates lead to the page on meta and not to the page here. Is this intended? What is the relationship between this page and the corresponding page at meta? --UV 23:47, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is an exact copy of the page at meta, and is here mostly to promote help and contribution to TOTW. Links to meta are links to pages which I have not transferred, or, for reasons of laziness and nothing else, do not intend to transfer. Please feel free to suggest specific changes, I am open!--Ioshus Rocchio 03:07, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :It is also to make, hopefully when I finish translating all the system messages =], red links with proper translations of earlier articles and ones which, I personally, have no interest in translating (like I skipped :en:Music of Greenland two weeks ago), so that people can click on them. I think it shows the vitality of a small wiki if it keeps up with TOTW...thats the whole point of TOTW, to boost small wikis, and broaden the larger interwikismedia project as a whole, by making links between all pages.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:03, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Ah, now I understand. Do you think the links on the TOTW templates etc. should link to meta or to the page here? --UV 00:49, 21 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Which?--Ioshus Rocchio 00:51, 6 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::  and  currently link to meta:Translatio hebdomadalis, shouldn't they rather link to Vicipaedia:Translatio hebdomadalis? --UV 19:40, 6 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::AHA!, absolutely, I edited the templates a while ago, before I made a copy on la...originally they directed to the english meta page. I will change them now.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:46, 6 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page vs. meta 

message: Anyone know how to construe this greek suffix in latin? This week's TOTW is :it:Gastrectomia.--Ioshus (disp) 05:49, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly as it is.  -tŏmĭa exists in latin for "cutting" (phlebotomia, etc.) and the cutting out is -ectomia, thus gastrectomia.  —Myces Tiberinus 11:51, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ektomia 

message: Verbum non rectum'st! Latine dicitur, "rem in aliam linguam vertere", non "transferre"! Sic vere stultum'st.
Ut ad "hebdomadalem" advertam. Ne verbis Graecis utamur! "Septimana" optimum verbum est Latinum, ergo scribamus, "Versio Septimanalis".--Faustus 04:35, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translatio hebdomadalis. Verba fortasse serotina, sed verba quidem. "Translatio", insensu unius linguae ad alteram versionism, est fortasse usus rarior, sed mihi videtur: transferimus enim commentationem non tantum ex sermone in sermonem sed etiam e vicipaedia ad vicipaediam. Quod ad septimanam attinet, nunc tu es qui magis serotina voce uteris. Adiectivum quod est hebdomadalis attestatur in fontibus antiquis, *septimanalis autem non. Exstat septimanarius, sed non mihi patet quid significet. --Iustinus 04:52, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago; hos verbos non novi in his sensis uti. Sed quo in sensu verbo "serotina" uteris? Eum non invenio in dictionario.--Faustus 04:46, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Non invenis serotinus -a -um omnino, an non invenis sensum quo utor? Si illud, scito serotinum esse adiectivum ab adverbio sero derivatum. Sin autem hoc, equidem recte dicis serotinum apud auctores classicos non habuisse sensum illum, nempe "Latinitatem Serotinam" esse eam Aevi Postclassici (cur enim Romani de isto aevo locuti essent?), potius spectavisse ad horam diei quam aevum historiae. Nihilominus, mihi quidem haud barbaricum videtur, et quod maius est, credo alios eum sensum adhibuisse (non autem locum habeo quem praebeam). Vale pancratice! --Iustinus 04:59, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Pancratice? Ecce vero verbum serotinum! --Faustus 20:19, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

text: Verbum serotinum?! Haud quaquam! Ecce:
replies: text: :NIC.  Benene usque valuit?

text: :CHRYS. Pancratice atque athletice!

text: :--Plauti Bacchides, 2.3.14

text: Num Plautum credis serotinum esse? :) --Iustinus 17:36, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translatio 

message: It is not: prijevod nedjelje, correct would be prijevod tjedna (translation of the week). In Croatian; week=tjedan, sunday=nedjelja.
replies: text: Hvala, I changed it to "Prijevod tjedna". Lesgles (disputatio) 21:24, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian 

message: Latíne non dícitur "Quaesemus" sed "Quaésumus". Conjugátio huiúsce verbi anomális est.
Iacóbus
thread_title:  "Quaesemus" 

message: Latíne non dícitur "Quaesemus" sed "Quaésumus". Conjugátio huiúsce verbi anomális est.
                                                                     Iacóbus
vires acquirit eundo
thread_title:  "Quaesemus"