lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Rosa Viterbiensis

message: The completeness (freshness)of the body of S. Rosa Viterbiensis was/is examined (to be)of miraculous incorruption Jondel (disputatio) 12:52, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "The completeness was examined of miraculous incorruption" makes no sense in English. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"The completeness 'of the body' was examined and was found to be of miraculous incorruption" --Jondel (disputatio) 02:56, 9 Maii 2016 (UTC)
and by order her name and (a description )about her 'cult/veneration' as told by Calistus  III(as Calistus  III tells) are inscribed  in the Roman Martyrology.
--> Examinata est mirabilis integras incorrupti corporis S. Rosa Viterbiensis, eiusque nomen deinde in Martyrologio Romano iusso et de culto suo ut fert Callistus III, sunt inscripta.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:52, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Would this be better?
Integras corporis S. Rosa Viterbiensis est examinata mirabilis incorrupti, eiusque nomen deinde in Martyrologio Romano iusso et de culto suo ut fert Callistus III, sunt inscripta.

text: S. Rosa Viterbiensis est examinata mirabilis = 'Saint Rosa the Wonderful was examined', but then corporis ('of the body') makes no sense, and Integras is in the wrong case, the wrong number, and the wrong gender; and iusso and culto are in the wrong declension. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
The subject is the wholeness of the body. You are correct about the declensions however, and overlooked the supines. Thus, I propose and make this change:
Corpore examinata, integritas corporis eius fuit mirabilis incorruptum, et nomen deinde in Martyrologio Romano iussu et de cultu suo ut fert Callistus III, sunt inscripta.
Kindly be aware that in almost all languages, words like 'characteristics, place, things,description,etc' tend to get left out leaving their adjectives and genitives behind. When we say 'Let us  go to McDonald's. ', we're really saying, let us go to the restaurant of McDonalds. I can provide latin examples if you require.--Jondel (disputatio) 02:41, 9 Maii 2016 (UTC)
* Yes, thanks Jondel. --Cláudio José Aarão Rangel (disputatio) 14:51, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
** Well, now I'm indecise. What you decide, IacobusAmor and Jondel, I agree. Thanks both. --Cláudio José Aarão Rangel (disputatio) 15:13, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial English Translation
Disputatio:Associatio omnium gentium non nationalis

message: Iacobus scripsit "". Verbum "anationalis", erroribus exceptis, nullibi reperio; praefixum a- Graecum haud verbis Latinis adiungendum censeo. Titulum ergo movi, sed, si quis meliorem locutionem reperit, gaudebo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Omnium gentium congregatio anethnica? Neander (disputatio) 16:54, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Ornatus uniformis

message: =>Ornati?  Why  not? Since induuntur is plural , shouldn't the subject be plural as well?('The uniforms are worn...) Is ornatus plural?--Jondel (disputatio) 01:09, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, ōrnātus is a fourth-declension noun; the nominative plural is ornātūs. See :wikt:en:ornatus#Noun for the full declension. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:18, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well there's an ornati at Whitakers.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:46, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)

text: :I guess I will be relying more on wiktionary and Perseus from hereon.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:49, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)

text: :Thank you for the heads up, Lesgles.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:55, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The examples you cite in Whitakers are forms of ornatus, -a, -um, a participle & adjective of the second declension. Ornatus, -us is a noun of the fourth declension. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:18, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks Iacobus!--Jondel (disputatio) 00:02, 14 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ornatus hodierni induuntur
Disputatio:Astatium

message: Nullo fonte citato, an hoc nomen error noster fuit nescio. Fontem unum repperi (Elementa chemicalia) sed haec tabula fortasse e Vicipaedia extracta est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 15 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astatinum
Disputatio:Laridum

message: Sub hoc verbo Lewis et Short dicunt "a kind of sausage or haggis" et DMLBS dicit "sausage, (meat) pudding, or sim. (v. et. truncunus)." Num "bacon/lard" significare potest? Lesgles (disputatio) 21:17, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Traupman: "lard" = adeps, vel si ex "bacon" factum lar(i)dum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 25 Maii 2016 (UTC)

text: Traupman: "bacon" = lardus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 25 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :And now I see the OLD defines tuccetum as "Some made-up savoury dish (according to scholiast on Pers. 2.42, beef or pork preserved with seasoning and marinade)". Perhaps our resident food expert can chime in? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:02, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It has Hispanic Romance reflexes including Portuguese toicinho/toucinho "pork fat"; Spanish tocino "bacon; fat, lard". The Catalan reflex, said by Meyer-Lübke to be tocin, is not in my smallish Catalan dictionary, nor in the Catalan wikipedia or wiktionary. Anyway, that evidence suggests the area between lard and bacon, which is an ill-defined area in other languages too. But the OLD seems to have misread the scholiast on Persius, who is quoted verbatim by Du Cange (s.v. tucetum at Logeion) and actually says this is beef, not pork, from Gallia Cisalpina. That's the only approach to a definition, and it contradicts other evidence including several citations in DMLBS, none of which, however, is very specific. In general, think :en:speck (I buy speck at market, it does come from Gallia Cisalpina, and it has particularly toothsome fat). I don't see how to pin tuccetum down more closely, but it surely shouldn't appear as an alternative lemma here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:25, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Interesting! Currently Tuccetum is still a redirect here, so perhaps we could throw in a quick note about it (or make a new page). Lesgles (disputatio) 22:23, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::According to Merriam-Webster, lard is nothing but rendered pig fat; the English word for rendered (beef) cattle fat is tallow. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:29, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuccetum
Disputatio:Ebola (flumen)

message: I ruled this no longer a non-stipula, even though I could not find a source for the lemma. This river is clearly the source for the name Ebola found in other articles here (about the virus), yet those articles are not considered non-stipulae. And the fact that Ebolavirus is an accepted taxon at this point says to me that there is at least a glimmer of an acceptance of it as a neo-Latin construction. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:17, 25 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we really only require sources for proper nouns when the form we use is specific to Latin (e.g. Pechinum). For most names, we default to the original language. In this case, one might argue for Legbala, the local indigenous name, but since Ebola is used in French (the official language of the DRC) and is recognized internationally, I would stick with that. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:04, 25 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: No source for the lemma
Disputatio:Index Mangarum

message: I suggest redirecting this page to Manga. The list is not really in any language, is mostly hidden text, and has clearly never been finished. Or does anyone want to improve it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; unless the list provides useful material in Latin, it's really duplicating the role of a category, and should be deleted. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:18, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda
Disputatio:Universitas Technica Istanbulensis

message: Latin doesn't render this English phrase literally: it uses the structure seen in "third from the oldest," so I've changed tertia vetissima (!) to tertia a veterrima. (Also, note that the superlative of vetus is irregular.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:39, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-oldest

message: In the box, the formula
replies: text: |city=Istanbul

text: |state=

text: |country=Turcia
is printing "Istanbul, Turcia" (two unconnected nouns), but it should probably be printing "Istanbul Turciae" ("Istanbul in/of Turkey"), or it should be split into two lines: one for the city, one for the country. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree. Your first alternative would mean editing every page that uses this formula, so let's put that aside for now ... It should be possible to adopt your second alternative, but the design of the formula is too complex for me I'm afraid. Maybe someone more confident will look in ... It contains other infelicities too ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:03, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula problem

message: The formula for a wayback URL isn't printing right. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When you copy a link over from another wiki you should test it. The first link you inserted in that footnote is dead, so you ought to have omitted it, I'd say. Good news therefore -- the wayback link is indispensable :) but, so far as I know, the wayback template on en:wiki has no real usefulness. All you have to do, as with any other external link, is: go to it, copy the URL address, and paste it in, with a Latin word or two as explanation. That's what I've done. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayback problem
Disputatio:Principissa Peach

message: Principissa Persica "Persian princess" significare videtur. Fructus peach in lingua classica est (malum) perscium. Sed in aliis linguis secunda nominis pars non convertitur: Princesse Peach, Prinzessin Peach, etc. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:44, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Traupman says a peach is a persicum, so Principissa Persicum could be accurate, whereas Principissa Persica is Just Plain Wrong (unless it's really supposed to mean 'the Persian Princess', which it isn't). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:53, 28 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Peach
Disputatio:Bogota

message: IP 24.251.29.163, care usor ignote, mutasti Bogota in Bogotá, citans "Carolus Egger, Diurnarius Latinus. Epitome actorum diurnorum in lingua Latina. (1980.ISBN 88-209-4366-2) p. 51." Sed ut  hic videmus, Egger loco citato (p. 51) revera dicit nomen Latinum esse Bogota, non Bogotá. Te nunc reverteris? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:49, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Talibus casibus oportet statim revertere, id quod nunc feci. Anonymi rarissime paginas disputationis legunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: One could argue that the link on "animus" should be removed, since the usage of the word here is figurative, while the article being linked to explicates the word's literal meaning exclusively. Toddcs (disputatio) 18:01, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles are over-linked. If you consider a link definitely unhelpful (and the reason you give above is a good reason) remove it. Anyone who reads the text later, and disagrees with you, can restore it or put a better link in its place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

text: I've removed it. The surrounding text strikes me as grammatical but unnecessarily wordy (maybe I needed more coffee). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :(1) Someday, every word will be hyperlnked without the clutter of double brackets and the shock of contrasting colors, so we could do worse than thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead. (2) Efficiency in coding texts is a virtue, but getting a high(er) score at Meta is a goal not without merit, and therefore cutting the size of one of the 1000 most important articles (such as "Bogota") is hardly a high priority. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, I've gotten rid of animus altogether. In doing so, I encountered an example of the importance of "thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead": the noun (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicus," but the adjective (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicina." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The day you wish for has already arrived. If your browser is as nifty as mine, you can highlight any word in the text, right-click, and search for it on Wikipedia and various other platforms. Yes, the choice for us remains as it was: whether or not to make a hotlink, and where that hotlink is to be directed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

text: :::Having said that, it's taken me 40 minutes to make my browser do a Latin Vicipaedia search on the highlighted word instead of any of the options it already offered me. But I've done it. Put that down to artificial intelligence human and slightly limited intelligence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animus
Disputatio:Aphrodite

message: Can we replace this with castrati ?--Jondel (disputatio) 23:15, 4 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. I reverted the previous change not because of the choice of word, but because it was ungrammatical. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:12, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Still, do you think this change is needless? I find very instances of the emasculare, and castrare seems more common in the classics. --Jondel (disputatio) 13:30, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think you're exactly right. How often have I said this to you, Jondel? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: emasculati
Disputatio Categoriae:Ecclesiae cathedrales Angliae

message: Not happy with this one. Firstly because we usually call them "ecclesiae cathedrales"; secondly because "in Anglia" isn't our usual phrasing in categories, in which we prefer "Angliae"; thirdly because nearly all the churches concerned (including the only one at present included) were Catholic before they turned Anglican. To phrase it like this demands logically two categories of almost identical content, which is a bad idea. I suggest "Ecclesiae cathedrales Angliae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine, as long as you want to mix the English and Roman cathedrals promiscuously! But on point 3, where's the overlap of "almost identical content" between en:Category:Anglican cathedrals in England and en:Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in England & Wales? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:11, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:11, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :We're on Vicipaedia here :) Thanks for your OK, I'm sure it'll work fine, albeit promiscuously. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?
Disputatio Categoriae:Ecclesia Anglicana

message: When I said that I moved this "Nemine contradicente" I exaggerated: Iacobus, on another page, had referred to the opinion that an "Ecclesia Anglica" had been in existence before Augustine. I knew he was wrong, because the church he was talking about cannot have been "Anglica" or "Anglicana". It would have been, if it had ever given itself a territorial name (and why would it have done so?) "Britannica"; it could never have called itself "Anglica". Well, that's what I say. But who am I? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 5 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nemine contradicente
Disputatio:Cuniculus radicalis Gothardianus

message: Verisimilis mea culpa, quia hanc paginam Cuniculus Ferriviae Montis Sancti Godehardi novus non vidi. Quid nunc facere?Andreas Raether (disputatio) 19:51, 9 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Alio auctore fortasse nunc absente, tibi oportet, amice, textum etc. paginarum sub titulo idoneo in unam coniungere. Id facere potes? Mihi videtur hunc titulum "Cuniculus radicalis Gothardianus" meliorem esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:18, 9 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Andrew: gratias ago →Disputatio Usoris:Vanosilo Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:17, 9 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuniculus Ferriviae Montis Sancti Godehardi novus = pagina duplex
Disputatio:Bibliotheca Nationalis Kosoviensis

message: Dardania's good, but the reason we probably wouldn't use it is that for an encyclopedia it's confusing to use ancient names of countries for modern countries that are not identical. People learning Latin are often taught to use such approximate names (the way that Byzantine Greeks used to do) but, in both cases, it doesn't really help their readers.
Hence we prefer names used by reliable modern Latin sources, and we often favour names that resemble the local official name. Luckily we found a source for Kosovia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:32, 10 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe it is better to move it, feel free to do it. :) --Katxis (disputatio) 10:51, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thank you, Katxis. It's good to have the page. I like libraries! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:10, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dardania
Disputatio:Scriptor scaenarius

message: What's this adjective scaenarius? (L&S say it's late Latin for classical scaenicus.) The usual sense of scaena is 'the boards of a theatre, the stage, the scene, the theatre' (Cassell's), but the article isn't talking about playwrights (authors of works intended to be put on a stage, i.e. plays): it's talking about screenwriters (authors of works intended to be shown on a screen, i.e. movies & television shows). If scriptor scaenicus is to be a screenwriter, what's to be a playwright? Cassell's and Traupman both say fabularum scriptor, but if so, is the contrast with scriptor scaenicus clear and unconfusing? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:50, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, two problems there!

text: I respect Cassell's and Traupman, but there is a problem with the word "fabula": it means other things besides "play", and a "scriptor fabularum" could just as well be a writer of stories. For that reason, I'd say "scriptor scaenicus" could be a handy and relatively unambiguous term for a playwright, as it is in our categories. How do you feel about that?

text: As for screenwriter, I don't have an immediate suggestion, ecxept that I guess "scriptor cinematographicus" might serve. No, I don't see why "scaenarius" comes in here ... hmmm, except that it agrees perfectly with your own previous page Scriptum scaenarium, where you cite Traupman as source. So you should feel flattered, Iacobe, it appears :)

text: This page is a non stipula as yet: no source, and very short. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio Categoriae:Familiae Rosidarum

message: Rosidae may be correct, though rarely referred to in Latin. The Finnish wiki is one of the very few that uses this Latin name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I think I was confused by the family-like -ae ending. The APG III seems to use "Rosids" and the ICBN "Rosidae"; I see we also have a description of the terminology at Rosidae. I suppose we'd better stick with that for now! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:26, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosidae
Disputatio:Sefelda

message: Is there a source for Thrithing(um) treated as Latin? It's really an Anglo-Saxon word.
Nice to have an article and a Latin name for Sheffield, though! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:02, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Trithingum is in the DMLBS, my new favorite source. Can't find a source for "West Riding," but do you think "Trithingum Occidentalis" is an acceptable synthesis? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:17, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks. I should have thought of that. I see, looking through the entry, that there are almost as many spellings as citations. "Trithingum", which those editors selected, seems a good choice to me. Yes, given this evidence, I think "Trithingum Occidentale" should be fine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrithing -ngum
Disputatio:Alanus Greenspan

message: Greenspan bis nupsit = 'She married Greenspan twice'. :o IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:44, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. I think you can probably guess what the author meant, so you could simply correct it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Err, why can't it be 'Greenspan married twice'? eg Greenspan divoced and then married another girl.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:14, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Does 'bis' have to the mean  the same object( person)? It should refer to the verb nupsit only.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:15, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

text: Iacobus's reason is that "nubo" in Latin is almost always used with a female subject. What our author could have written is (for example) "Greenspan bis uxores duxit". That's what I write if I want to say a similar thing. I edited this page today, but I'm a bit sleepy and never noticed this sentence! Now that I'm back here again, I'll change it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have a  lot to learn! Gosh, I wouldn't know.Thanks and thanks to Iacobus too. Here it is about 9:30 pm, just relaxing, in slang, just 'chiling'.Good night Andrew.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:32, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The basic sense of nubere is 'to cover'; hence nubes, nebula, nimbus. Particularly, however, the sense is: '(of a bride) to cover herself for the bridegroom'. That's why the husband is in the dative case, not the accusative. Martial applies this verb to a man to make a comical expression: uxori nubere nolo meae 'I don't want to marry (nubere) a wife' = 'I don't want to be a wife's wife' = 'I don't want to be dominated by a wife'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:49, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Very impressive. Wow. There is a saying among med students is 'The more you know, the more you don't know. Until finally, you know everything but know even more that you know absolutely nothing. sheesh. :)--Jondel (disputatio) 15:02, 12 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Miraculum
Disputatio Categoriae:Ars insulana

message: This seems rather an insular name. To Latin readers, who know of lots of islands, the meaning can hardly be self-evident. Can we devise something clearer? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's literally glossing a term familiar in the world of art history, but indeed a better term might be desirable. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:15, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for your reply. I must admit I don't yet have a better suggestion :-( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Impetus Telavivi Iunio 2016 factus

message: The lemma, Insidiae Telavivi die 8 Iunii 2016 locatae, is taken to mean 'Ambush set at Telaviv on 8 June 2016'. Is that what was intended? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:36, 14 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias, Iacobe, non statim intellexi, quod scripsisti - quia verbum insidiarum in indice verborum meo convertitur alio modo. Illic "insidiae" non solum "latebra" (ambush=insidiae, latebra?) sed etiam "impetus" significat. Cursus ante coffeariam Telavivi et latebram et impetum monstrat: duo vires in coffeariam venerunt, exspectaverunt viginti minutos, deinde ... horribile  Andreas Raether (disputatio) 20:22, 15 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quonam in indice dicitur insidias etiam 'impetum' significare? Errore falli videtur. Equidem hunc suadeo titulum: Impetus Iunio 2016 Telavivi factus, aut sclopetatio Iunio 2016 Telavivi facta. Neander (disputatio) 16:48, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Scintilla

message: Is there more to say about this character (and others like Quartilla), or should they be merged into a list? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:02, 15 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. There may be more to say about Quartilla. Let me consider briefly ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 15 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De personis Petronii