lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Lotus

message: I did rely extensively on Dalby's A to Z for this page, but I'm not certain that it makes sense to give bibliography on a disambiguation page. --Iustinus 09:40, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think sources should - on the long run - be given just on the page which explains the term and not whenever a term is used. So we have the information only in one place, which has advantages for maintaining and discussing the content. However, when the referenced page does not exist yet (red links), I sometimes whished I had the information, if that term was chosen intentionally ... in case someone edits the red link. --Roland (disp.) 20:44, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :My thoughts exactly. Perhaps the solution is to create a template with words to the effect of "this footnote gives sources on a subject for whcih we do not yet have an article. Once that article is written, please move this note" vel sim. --Iustinus 00:26, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::As written, this is not a discretiva page. When just plain "lotus" is given as a nexus in an article, it's marked "DIS" and is displayed with a red-pink background. Despite this advertisement (i.e., that the nexus is linked to a discretiva page) the link redirects here. IacobusAmor 04:45, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Agreed, it falls between a discretiva and a real article. A good solution would be for some kind person to write the real articles! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)

message: Oy vey: LilyKitty just added a link to Nymphaea lotus... and now I see that there may be some confusion in the literature between that species and Nymphaea alba. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:48, 22 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  White lotuses
Disputatio:Phonodiscorum selector

message: Sorry...there is really nothing substantiating "abbreviatio est DI"... Even if there were a reason to write this, I doubt anyone in the entire world would know what you meant if you said "I was at a party and the DI was awesome!" They'd look at you and say, "Don't you mean DJ."--Ioshus Rocchio 18:36, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviatio

message: Discimpositor is a strangely compounded word. Do we have an attestation? Zoology gives us ovipositor, an egg-placer, not an ovimpositor, an egg-imposer. According to Cassell's, a jockey is an agaso, -onis. Ergo, a disc jockey might be a discorum agaso. Or developing the idea that a jockey is an eques, a rider of horses, perhaps we'd rightly have discorum eques, a rider of discs. IacobusAmor 16:36, 20 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish version is "pinchadiscos", because he "stang" the LP's with the needle (of the phonograph). The Latin word may well be Discaculator. --Xaverius 09:20, 30 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Rubripurpureus

message: Fuchsia mihi ignotum verbum est. Idemne significet ac fucus? 89.50.55.102 20:40, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non, Fuschia significet plantatio, et flos, etiam Anglice color de plantatione. Alexanderr 21:03, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Articulum Anglicum de Fuchsia (sic!) perlegi. Flos est, cuius color mihi ex imagine rufus esse videtur. usor:Bohmhammel, 20.26, 11 Kal. Sept. 2006
replies: text: ::vide imago in pagia de en:Fuchsia excorticata et postea articulum de colore en:Fuchsia (color). Alexanderr 21:43, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::vide etiam imagines in pagia de:Fuchsien. Colores floris sunt diverse, nomen coloris est etiam fuchsia appelletur. Alexanderr 21:54, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I've created a discretiva page. --Roland (disp.) 22:00, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
um, not to belabor the obvious, but do we have this attested as the name of a color in the Latin of any era? even if we do, shouldn't the article be named after the masculine form, as with the other colors? honestly most derivative colors in Latin have an adjectival suffix, usually -eus (caeruleus, puniceus and so on). but I don't know what happens if the stem already ends in a vowel when you add that. --usor:iustinus 22:29, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: Iustinus, it is a neo-latin word (even for the plant) derived from the name of Leonhardus fuchsius and the first recorded use of it to describe a plant was in 1703 as "Fuchsia triphylla, flore coccineo". Fuchsia might be the adjective there but I'm not sure. Either way most likely it has been used as an adjective sometime between 1703 and now. Alexanderr 22:43, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, of course it is Neo-Latin, and of course it is proper in reference to the plant. But I don't think it's safe to assume usage as a color without some sort of citation. For now, I woudl recommend just noting in the article on the plant that fuchsia is also used as the name of a color in many vernacular languages. And I reiterate: the morphology of fuchsia is not right if it is to be an adjective meaning "of the same color as the fuchsia plant." Some more examples of derivitave colors in -eus: argenteus, cinereus, coccineus, croceus. All of these can be analyzed as a noun + -eus, and mean "of the same color as X". --Iustinus 00:24, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: So Fuchsieus? Or Fuchsineus, Fuchseus? --Alex1011 19:24, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

message: Following the (not completely resolved) discussions on English wikip we could move that page to color Maxenticeus or something like that avoiding discussions about Fuchsia. Alex1011 10:27, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Castra Maxentia]]
Disputatio:Canon (musica)

message: canon has many meanings in latin. I'm not sure this one should get the primary billing. --iustinus 23:32, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So disambiguate them already! I'd hope that music-lovers would agree that Canon (musicale) [neuter? it's not in my dictionary] deserves to be an entry. IacobusAmor 00:04, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, I see: I'd titled the article Canon (musicale), but somebody has changed it to just plain Canon. IacobusAmor

text: :Aha! Well, it should be Canon (musicus) in any case. Or all the meanings of canon can be discussed on one page, I suppose: such things happen a lot on la:, both because Latin tends to cover multiple subjects with one word, and because more often than not we don't have enough writing to divy up the articles nicely. But for now, let's just move this back. --Iustinus 00:57, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :Oooh, but canon is also a part of a hydraulic organ! That could also legitimately be expected at canon (musicus)... perhaps there should be an otheruses tag mentioning that that will be under canon (organi)... or better yet, just straight at hydraulis/organum hydraulicum. --Iustinus 00:59, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

message: Ubi est canon litterarius? Imperator (disputatio)
replies: text: Nondum scriptus (sed cf. Canon (Biblia)). Incipe, o imperator! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 19 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
Quando tempus magnum habeo, paginam scribam. Imperator (disputatio)
thread_title:  Canon litterarius
Disputatio:Iuventus Hitleriana

message: Nominavitur?--Ioshus Rocchio 17:04, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AHHH! Nunc video, stultus sum...--Ioshus Rocchio 16:56, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Non stultus es, mutavi. Amphitrite 17:03, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Organisatio =? (Surely the Romans wouldn't have used a post=Middle-Ages Frenchified spelling, and would have kept the Greek zee.) IacobusAmor 17:26, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I think you´re right, I change it. Amphitrite 17:33, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

message: Iuventus Hitleriana dicendum est. (Hitler Youth, not Hitler's bachelors) --Alex1011 21:52, 19 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iuventus Hitleriana
Disputatio:Pluto (planetulus)

message: As of today, Pluto is no longer regarded to be a planet. By astonomers, that is. Should this article be changed? Or should the article present a more layman kind of POV? --Agricola 20:19, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 Skinnee J's (whom I trust dearly, though perhaps not as much as astronomers) sure think that Pluto is a planet! More seriously, though...I don't know. I'm torn between trusting the academic body of astronomy and the 20 odd years that I've been calling it a planet.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:25, 24 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Planetula? Though I see someone has already used this for Ceres, perhaps thinking of Planetoides. --Iustinus

text: (er, or shoudl that be planeticula? --Iustinus 03:05, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC))
Planetula = pumilio planeta (Anglice: dwarf planet) proposui, sed si quis melius inveniat nomen... 
Et Ceres et Pluto in eadem categoria nunc sunt. usor:Bohmhammel, 12.47, 8 Kal. Sept. 2006

text: They don't like to be called "dwarfs": they prefer to be called "little planets." ;)

text: Aliae possibilitates: planetola, planetella, planetilla. IacobusAmor 14:59, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
well the thing is, the normal rules say that the diminutive of a first declension noun (whose stem ends in a consonant) end in -ula, whereas a third declension ends in -icula. Greek first declension masculines like planetes sometimes end up with third declension forms. but I guess this word normally ends in -a in any case, so it's wholey first declension.  but come to think of it, it is masculine, so it should be planetulus! (planetillus is also a possibility: double diminutive. But *planetola would be incorrect) --Iustinus 15:26, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: Not I, but the IAU says dwarf planet to Pluto, Ceres a.s.o. Nostrum sit verbum Latinum pro eo invenire. Et planetilla et planetula diminutiva apta verbi planetae sunt; dubito an declinatio mutanda sit, quamvis scilicet masculina sint... Quod ad titulum pertinet: nihil refert utrum (planetula) an (astronomia) adiungatur. usor:Bohmhammel, 17.40, 6 Kal. Sept. 2006
replies: text: :I'm well aware of the source of the term, don't worry. But I'm pretty sure that diminutives are always -us -a -um for m f n. But I guess we shoudl see if we can find a concrete example of the diminutive form of a 1st declension masculine, just to be sure. And like you I don't really care what word we use to distinguish the title. --Iustinus 02:40, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Diminutiva verborum masculinorum a-declinationis difficillima sunt inventu. Tantum unum repperi: Nomina duorum fluviorum, nempe Mosa, -ae, m et Mosella, -ae (m, sed etiam f). usor:Bohmhammel, 21.24, 5 Kal. Sept. 2006

message: What about avoiding this word in the title and moving the page to Pluto (astronomia)? --Roland (disp.) 21:26, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto (astronomia)
Disputatio:0

message: Quod ad calendarium attinet: Numeri annorum non sunt cardinales, immo ordinales, et inde numquam numerum zipheri tenere possunt. usor:Bohmhammel , 20.27, 9 Kal. Sept. 2006

message: Mihi videtur nomen huius paginae 'zerus' aut 'zerum' fieri oportere, quia hoc est nomen in libris mathematicis usitatis hodiernis. Magna est differentia inter symbolum (numerale), cui ex antiquitate 'cifra' evidenter est nomen, et conceptum mathematicum, cui nomen est 'zerum' aut 'zerus', et conceptum philosophicum, cui nomen veterrimum est 'nihil' aut 'nil'. --Rafaelgarcia 08:59, 7 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides Arabic loans, we have a completely classical vocable nulla, used up to this day in most Germanic and Slavic languages. Gabriel Svoboda 17:26, 7 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Why feminine? For that matter, why are 1, 2, 3 masculine in their substantive forms, while all other adjectives are neuter? And also we have nullae on the page ... Pantocrator 15:11, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nulla may come from neuter plural, too, in accordance with omnia etc. --Gabriel Svoboda 18:36, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De cifra aut zero 

message: Si, iam a saeculo XIII, nomen zephyri Linguae Latinae medii aevii in promptu est, cur non potest nobis usui esse? Praeterea, zephyrum est origo sive zeri recentium linguarum sive cifrae linguae Arabicae.
replies: text: Si "zephyrum" hac significatione repperisti et paginam movere vis, cur non potes fontes citare et disputationes, quas supra vides, continuere :) ?

text: Apud Vicipaediam editoribus nomine munitis, neque aliis, licet paginas movere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:39, 9 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

text: Ea cito scripsi et ad cubiculum ivi. Hodie longius exscribo: pro certo licet ad nomen idoneum movere, sed, antequam id feceris, fontem oportet citare. Quia alii iam supra de nomine disputaverunt, oportet et tibi hic rationem paginae movendae explicare.

text: Si conventum aperire nolis, non potes ipse paginam movere, sed pro certo potes alios suadere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Secundum omne quod intellego, numerus 0 recte, proprius et melius Latine appellatur numerus zerus. Zephyrum, quamquam hoc sensu adhibitum erat, alios sensos habet primarios in astronomia ,punctum recte sursum, in tabulis ventus vel directio ad occidentem. Cifra quoque et latius significat quodque numerus quique in tabula et symbolum secretum vel specializatum in usu mathematicum. Solum nomen zerus seu zerum significat 0 ille numerus et nil ultra.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 13:16, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zephyrum
Disputatio:Rosarium (oratio)

message: Mysteria Luminosa? Andy120 02:54, 27 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
De mysteriis gaudiosis, dolorosis, gloriosisque ubique mentio fit (praesertim cum vulgaribus canticis saepissime celebrentur inde a saeculo XVI, vel etiam antiquius). De mysteriis "luminosis" vero nunquam audivi. Quorum auctoritas sane dubiosa videtur, utpote cum quater quinque CC sint, CL minime. Si re vera existentiam habent, Rosario certe aliena sunt.
Henskridonier 01:14, 1 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Quod Rosarium originem suam ducat a recitatione psalterii etc. valde dubium videtur cum Psalterium nunquam uno tractu recitetur (in quo tota dies vel plus consumeretur!). 
Henskridonier 00:50, 1 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De origine rosarii
Disputatio:Taiwanum

message: * I -iam tenemus res Respublica Sinarum et .--85.1.170.206 16:15, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
** - Taiwanum indipendens civitas est non provincia de Republisca Populi Sinarum--Massimo Macconi 05:27, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwanum
Disputatio:Pila Magica 8

message: My oldest dictionary says it's lusus tudicularis and pilae eburneae pulsatio. IacobusAmor 03:26, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with the first one for now, thanks Iacobe.--Ioshus Rocchio 11:44, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Helfer (lexicon auxiliare) praebet ludus tudicularis, sed etiam truchus et ludus trusatilis. usor:Bohmhammel, 20.20, 3 Kal. Sept. 2006
thread_title:  who knows how to say billiards? 

message: I don't know Latin but how/why can you have "magica" there? Isn't it an 8-ball that's magic? Not a ball with a magic 8 —Linguas romances 18:01, 27 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pila 8 Magica
Disputatio:Giraffa

message: :1. Sic, giraffa est genus animalium, et animal hic descriptum est Giraffa camelopardalis. 
replies: text: 2. Hic et alibi in Vicipaedia, verbum mammalia videtur nomen femininum singulare in declinatione prima, sed recte debet esse nomen neutrum plurale in declinatione tertia, sicut animalia.

text: 3. Hoc animal fere est in Africa vel Africanum, non ex Africa (Anglice: 'out of Africa').
replies: text: :Vel Africae. (loc aut gen)--Ioshus (disp) 15:18, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Definitely should be s.v. camelopardis or camelopardalis. I do, however, have a lovely image of a giraffe from a 17th century Latin book, where it is labled zûraffa ;) --Iustinus 04:23, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Etiam mihi videtur nomen "camelopardalis" latinius esse quam "giraffa" (quae arabe est verbum). Wikipedia hispanica dicit romanos Julio Caesare contemporaneos nomine "camelopardis" usos esse. [--146.83.180.2]
replies: text: ::::Nihilominus, binomen rectum est Giraffa camelopardalis. IacobusAmor 02:35, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Giraffa est genus mammaliae ex Africa."
Disputatio:Mars

message: Are such things ordered by any principle? or is their order expected to be random? I'd suggest that if a principle is wanted, it be that the items be listed in the (sometimes necessarily approximate) order by which they appeared in history. According to this principle, the various Marses could possibly be ordered thus:
replies: text: Mars (gen. Martis), deus belli Romanus, Romuli pater (Graece Ares)

text: Mars, quarta planeta systematos solaris

text: Ratione astrologica, Mars. . . . <--- addendum est?

text: Ratione alchimica, Mars nonnumquam pro ferro stat

text: Mars, urbs in Francia

text: Mars Hill, urbs in Carolina Septentrionali, CFA

text: Mars Hill College. . . .

text: Frank C. Mars

text: Mars, societas Americana quae dulcia conficit

text: Mars, genus dulcium ex theobromate confectum

text: MARS, "Military Affiliate Radio System" (Exercitus CFA)

text: MARS, "mobile augmented reality system"

text: Mars Society. . . .

text: New Mars, A Journal of the Martian Frontier
Etc. IacobusAmor 03:00, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordo Nominum in Rebus Disambiguationalibus
Disputatio:Gastrectomia

message: In his edit sumary, Ioshus Rocchio writes:
replies: text: Iustine, vel Myces, what do you think of the syntax here? attraction of the case of stomachus to the syntax required by partem, but not totam)
In and of itself, I have no problem with that. It's rather nice in fact. But why is totam feminine? Stomachus is, by L&S, masculine. Also, I would advize against putting stomachi animalis in sequence like that: "chains" of genitives are always dangerous, but all the more so when we're using fancy syntax. Maybe put stomachi and vel totam vel partem closer together, to make it clearer. Also, it seems to me that sectio chirurgica is better than sectio chirurgiae. --Iustinus 18:08, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haha, totam is feminine because pars is...attracting case and gender...oops...--Ioshus (disp) 18:11, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax
Disputatio:Auctores Neolatini hodierni

message: I had not intended to categorize the authors on the list by nationality, but by organization or school of thought. For instance, the Latinists who regularly come to the Conventiculum Latinum Lexintoninese tend to have a very different philosophy and style than those of the Saarbrücken Societas Latina, so it seemed useful to group them that way. --Iustinus 20:26, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Notability is becoming an issue here. I think it should be obvious that the threashold for inclusion of a modern Latin author has to be much lower here than it would be on, say, the English wikipedia. However, when I first conceived this page, my main criterion for inclusion was essentially whether or not they had any published work (this was only a rough guideline though, as e.g. Stephanus Berard and David Morgan hadn't really published anything major when I added them, but given theoverwhelming  importance of David's future Lexicon, and the fact that Stephanus founded a Conventiculum—not to mention his Vita Nostra, which I suspect will be very influential when it's finally published—I thought such exceptions were warrented). This criterion was important, because otherwise what's to stop me from including myself? ;) Now there are an increasing number of articles about Modern Latinists, and some are less notable than others. E.g. should everyone mentioned at Vivarium Novum really get their own link? My initial answer was "no," but it is hard to deny, for instance, that Arturus Tabaku is a major figure at a major school of spoken Latin. So I guess it's time to open up the debate here.
How should we decide this? --Iustinus 20:49, 15 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: ok on the navigation bar that is in the articles, it shouldnt be celare it should be cela because cela is the command form, celare means "to hide" -- Usor:207.166.7.200
replies: text: Responsum vide hic: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De latinitate Vicipaediae

message: 151.73.107.29 13:55, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)   Miror quod nil hic de patre Caelesti Eichenseer dicitur.
replies: text: :Veniam peto. Video nunc prolixam hic esse de patre Caelesti symbolam, seu potius vocem.   151.73.107.29 14:42, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pater Caelestis 

message: Nonne est pleonasticum “neo-” et “hodierni” simul scribere? --Grufo (disputatio) 13:43, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea mente, "sermo Neolatinus" dicit "post litteras renascentes", scriptis botanicis scientificisque exclusis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ita. Ergo “Auctores Latini hodierni” sunt pars litterarum Neolatinarum, tamquam auctores Latini Humanesimi… --Grufo (disputatio) 16:41, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 11 Decembris 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Auctores Latini hodierni]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Stephanus Irwin

message: OK, Iacobus rightly corrected me on two counts. With regards to Lyn and Bob, well, I just have to plead sleep deprevation. Sorry! As for "stingray," I looked into this and found out I had conflated two Latin forms of this word: trīgŏnus -i, m., and trȳgōn -ōnis, m.. Both of these are borrowed from Greek τρυγών, the native Latin name being pastĭnāca. Of course pastinaca litterally means "parsnip" (or "carrot")... and you know, you can totally see the resemblance or something. Many, perhaps even most, Latin names of sea-creatures are secondary uses of other words, cf. locusta (grasshopper or scampi shrimp), canis (dog; shark), urtica (nettle; sea anemone), pecten (comb; scallop). In general, these words can (and for article-titling purposes should) be distinguished fromt their landlubbin' counterparts by adding a form of the adjective marinus -a -um, thus locusta marina, canis marinus, and so on. (Of course this only applies to sea creatures: I'm not 100% sure what to do with their river-dwellng counterparts.) --Iustinus 21:39, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin for "stingray"
Disputatio:Georgius Cuvier

message: The one source I can find on this name is:
*1836-1838: C. Plinii Secundi Historiae naturalis libri XXXVII, quibus accessere novus index animalium, mineralium, vegetabilium synonymicus, nominumque et rerum quo ad cetera enodatio, habita alphabetici ordinis ratione, et notis gallicae editionis Ajasson de Grandsagne. Quarum auctores exstitere ad zoosophiam ut plurimum, G. Cuvier passim vero et in iis quae zoosophiae non erant, Doé, E. Dolo, ... etc. ...
--Iustinus 00:05, 7 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fontes

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 4. Lipsiae 1906, p. 383-384 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis