lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Campanarium

message: I really don't think "Belfried" can be used in Latin.  It's an Anglo-Germanic word, deriving from "bell" and "friede".  What about Turris Campanilis? GiovaneScuola2006 22:51, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are unsure about the correct title for a page you want to start, you can ask at Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti. (Sorry, I myself do not know a precise translation for Belfried.) Greetings, --UV 23:50, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : Wonderful tip!!!  I didn't know about that page!  Wunderbar -- meraviglioso -- this Latin Wiki is really an amazing experience! GiovaneScuola2006 23:55, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In a dictionary I found campanario. --Alex1011 15:36, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hmmm, I'm still not sure.  Campanario is a Spanish word, synonymous with Campanil, which is like the Italian Campanile.  But wouldn't it have to be Campanarius, -i?  I'd be pretty surprised if it were Campanario, -rionis!  And frankly, I have this itching feeling that there is a noun in nominative case for which campanilis would be the genetive.  Any chance any of you with a bigger dictionary than I could find it??? GiovaneScuola2006 19:06, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

message: I found a passage which reads:
data caputmagistro exterrari faciendi viam campanilis ... Item deliberaverunt quod caputmagister Opere sine suo preiudicio et dapno possit expensis Opere exterrari facere totam viam existentem inter domum ser Niccolai Tinucci et campanile ecclesie Sancte Marie del Fiore pro eo pretio et pactis prout sibi videbitur et placebit; et quicquid circa predicta fecerit intelligatur et sit factum per eorum offitium  So what declensions are we talking about here, and what would the nominative be?  GiovaneScuola2006 19:24, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found something! 

message: *From PONS ... campanarium, -i: (spätl.) Glockenturm
*Via Google ... Campanarius: Glöckner
*From PONS: campana, -ae: (spätl.) Glocke
(spätl. = late Latin, Glocke = bell, Turm = tower, Glöckner = the man who rings the bell)
--Roland (disp.) 19:31, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Campanarium I would say.--Ioshus (disp) 19:57, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Aha!  You guys solved it!  Great!  Thanks so much!  What is PONS?  Sounds like I book I need to buy immediately. GiovaneScuola2006 19:51, 29 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::PONS: Vicipaedia:Lexicon

text: ::a) PONS Wörterbuch für Schule und Studium / Lateinisch-Deutsch. Rund 90.000 Stichwörter und Wendungen. Klett. ISBN 10: 3-12-517553-4, ISBN 13: 978-3-12-517553-2

text: ::b)

text: ::--Roland (disp.) 20:19, 29 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  campan... 

message: Ahem...Homo...non homus...--Ioshus (disp) 19:56, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  homus
Disputatio:Panis

message: I'd kind of like to update the references on this page to the <ref>-style footnotes. Of course it is listed as an example of "old-style" references at Vicipaedia:Fons (and is probably the best one there), so I figure I should ask if there are any objections first. --Iustinus 22:31, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok for me. When I provided these examples, I wanted to show that there are different styles. It seems that the authors prefer the new style. --Roland (disp.) 22:36, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul
Disputatio:Viccingi

message: If someone wants to write the article about the Rus', the period Greek name for them seems to be Ῥῶς (indecl.), adjective Ῥωσικός, which will Give Latin Rhos (indecl.), Rhosicus. They were also called, classicizingly, Tauroscythae. --Iustinus 16:47, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh! Some Latin sources too! See :en:The Rus#Western European sources. --Iustinus 16:52, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rus'

message: The second sentence seems to be very POV --LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 20:29, 9 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milites Crudelissimi

message: This page just was moved with the argument movit Vicingus ad Vicingi: paginae gentium semper in pluralia sunt. IMO this argument is irrelevant, since the vikings did not constitute a people. The page should be moved back to Vicingus. Georgius B 18:16, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you. Singular where possible...--Ioshus (disp) 18:19, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Then maybe we could have a page vicingus saying what a viking was and then we could have a page like Gestae Vicingorum or Historia Normannorum or something like that with most of the content of this page, the history of the viking period and the viking raids--Xaverius 18:59, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::For the record, the page seems to have stayed at "Vicingi" (pl). I think this is right. They were groups of people: you could hardly be a Viking on your own. You could decide to go viking, that's true, but you would need a boatful of companions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 2 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Restituere necesse est

message: I don't understand the reference to "Carolus Du Cange et al., Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, 1887, p. 313". That's a Greek dictionary: so what is the Greek word for Viking that's being cited here? Question 2 would be how it comes on page 313 when du Cange's Greek dictionary, in the only edition I know, is so much bigger than that. Maybe the intention was to cite one of the volumes of the revised version of du Cange's Latin dictionary? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I copied the text from the formula. I didn't know, there was also a Lexicon Graecitatis. In my defense, it's a little odd that the Lexicon Graecitatis has its own formula and the Latinitatis doesn't.--Chris1981 15:35, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :We ought to have one, no doubt. Maybe including a link to an online version. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added reference 

message: Ita, fortasse recte "viccingi"; sed oportet fontem citare mediaevalem, si sit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 2 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne Vicingi, forma extra Vicipaediam usitatissima, praeferenda sit formae Viccingi, prius quidem attestatae sed extra Vicipaediam minus usitatae? Neander (disputatio) 18:31, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo 

message: Unde "Varaegi"? Certe non a Graeco citato quod est Οὐαράγγοι > Varangi. --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:15, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varaegi
Disputatio:Societas

message: In German the word :de:Gesellschaft has two main meanings: :de:Gesellschaft (Soziologie) (in the context of sociologia) and :de:Gesellschaft (Rechtswesen) (in the context of iurisprudentia). Latin seems to be similar in this case. The single word societas seems to be a valid translation for "company/corporation". In Langenscheidt I found "societas anonyma" for "Aktiengesellschaft" (:en:Joint stock company), so the single word "societas" seems to be "Gesellschaft" in the sense of "company/corporation".
Now my question: ;-)
I would like to put
* Google
* Yahoo!
* Microsoft
* Fiat
* etc
into a category and would like to have a main page for this category. Maybe:
*:de:Gesellschaft (Soziologie) ... "societas hominum"
*:de:Gesellschaft (Rechtswesen)/:de:Unternehmen/company/corporation ... "societas xy" ... xy = ???
--Roland (disp.) 22:59, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My professor suggested "societas mercantilis" for business type company.--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Which, btw, I like better than the genitive "mercantorum" as cited on the page proper.--Ioshus (disp) 13:12, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Now we need a term for 'nonprofit corporation'. Lucrativus = 'profitable'; in English at least, that doesn't mean the same as 'for profit' (vs. 'nonprofit'). White's dictionary has lucrificabilis 'gainful, profitable' (Plaut.) and lucrificus 'gainful, profitable' (Plaut.), but it doesn't have lucrativus. IacobusAmor 00:12, 12 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Please, see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5 sv. "nonprofit" (item 4). --Neander 00:27, 12 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Company/corporation
Disputatio:Iudo

message: Does someone remember when/where we discussed about Ziudi/Judo? (I'd like to rename the category from Judo to Ziudo.) --Roland (disp.) 00:22, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ziudo vs Judo

message: Ziudo, forma acutula nimiaque subtilitate ornata, fonte caret. Iudo autem multis fontibus confirmatur (Morgan; Vilbog; Pekkanen & Pitkäranta). Quod ad Jedi attinet, sit ut scriptum est; cf. Jazz. Neander (disputatio) 18:01, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Licet mihi. Non sequitur traditionem Latinam, nomina Anglicarum sicut John, (Galli Jean), Jesus , verba Joke, Just, June ex Iohanne, Iesus, Iocus, Iustus, Iunius tradenda quod verbum "Judo" non hanc traditionem habet(Quamquam fontes sint pro Iudo). Nam nos opertet fidelis esse sonum "J" quod melius sit Z vel (dz). Latina recta per se, melius sit mihi Ziudo. Jondel (disputatio) 23:53, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, sed Vicipaedia fontes fideles praefert. Si dictionaria hodierna Latina "Iudo" dicunt, "Iudo" hic accipiendum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Bene.Jondel (disputatio) 22:44, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  E disputatione [[Jedi]]
Disputatio:Iehova

message: (Rectissime "Adonayi"). In lingua Hebraica:-
*Hic, terminatio "-i" dicit "meus".
*Hic, "adonay" est "forma constructa" (Hebraice "smichut") pro formis duale "adonayim" (id est `duo domini') et plurale "adonim" (id est `domini'), Hebraice nam hoc "m" finale deest si nomen regitur est a genitive. Et simile est Arabice: "shaghgha_li_n" = "opifices", "shaghgha_li_ Zaid" = "opifices Zaidis".
Significat igitur "mei domini", plurale, ut nomen Dei "Elohim" est in forma plurale.
Anthony Appleyard 07:42, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Quis scit, unde historia de nominis Jehovae origine Hurriana oriunda sit?--Utilo 17:07, 25 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio! Id scripsit primus editor, i.e. Usor:Wolfgang1018. Hic etiam hodie interdum apud nos edidit; oportet igitur apud eum fontes postulare ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:47, 25 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Significatio nominis Adonai

message: Vide disputationem hic: Disputatio Usoris:Filiusdealiquo/Iahveh. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 13 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De pagina ad [[Iahveh]] movenda aut non movenda
Disputatio:Israël

message: *Mehercle magna confusio nominum oppidorum. Melius sit semper uti formis recentibus Hebraicis. Anthony Appleyard 18:52, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Vide Disputatio:Israel. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:56, 29 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda? 

message: Lemma "Civitas Israel" sine fonte additum est. An fontem huius locutionis Latinae reperire possumus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The official Hebrew name (מדינת ישראל, medinat Yisrael) is routinely translated as "State of Israel". Are you looking for an explicit source for this? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:18, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :We ought normally to give a Latin source for a lemma if there is a source. Perhaps there is. If there isn't one, a simple alternative would be to use "Israel" as the only lemma -- we have a source for it, already cited -- then give the official Hebrew name, and then give "civitas Israel" unbolded, in quotes, as translation of the Hebrew. It may seem the merest quibble, but people look to Vicipaedia for exactly this sort of information, so we shouldn't bold (as a lemma) a Latin form that we have made up, as if it were equal to a Latin form that has a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I take your point. Unless you can find a modern geography textbook or atlas in Latin, your best bet is probably the Vatican Secretariat of State. But I know they don't always translate their documents into Latin. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:07, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The phrase itself appears to go back at least as far as Origen (third century). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:45, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

text: :::Here you go, in the first sentence, from 2005. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:46, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Great. I had found the Origen item too, but I didn't find the modern one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Added (as you saw). I suppose I could argue that confirming a lemma would properly be a job for Victionarium, but I know that's not what people really do. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:27, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::You might argue that, but I might argue that Victionarium is not a reliable source ... The reason we are more careful about confirming lemmas than some other Wikipedias is a practical one (I'd say): modern Latin is relatively hard to confirm. On the other hand it is easy to create Latin names by guesswork, well or badly. To help users, we ought to indicate clearly whether we have a reliable source. And it fits with general Wikipedia policy: cite reliable sources, don't make things up.

text: ::::::For two completely different recent examples, see Diploma inventionis/Litterae patentes and Carolus Darwin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemmata
Disputatio:Dusseldorpium

message: Dusseldorpium is not a good translation.
It is more correct to use the original germanic word of the Duessl: thusila.
Therefore it will be more correct to translate it into Vicus ad Thusilam.
Also the Romans took already existing names to name already existing villages
and places.
Dusseldorpium sound more like my dialect here in this Duesseldorf, just with an -ium as ending.
replies: text: # We should not be inventing words, but to use those already in use.  Google search for books containing 'Dusseldorpium'.  Vicipaedia guidelines for rendering foreign names.

text: # Latin is not the same thing as Roman.  This isn't a Roman Wikipedia, it's just a Latin one.  —Myces Tiberinus 11:09, 3 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  de titulo huius paginae 

message: Koennte jemand ein anderes Altbierphoto 'reinstellen? Diebels kommt nicht avs D'dorf. Danke.
replies: text: ok, kannst Du aber auch selber machen, die Wikipedia kann jeder bearbeiten, einfach oben auf "bearbeiten" klicken. --UV 22:42, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  de imagine cerevisiae
Disputatio:Hunni

message: Sunt Hunni natio aut gens aut populus? --Roland (disp.) 16:39, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be discussed. See also Disputatio Usoris:UV#Nationes/populi/gentes. --UV 19:24, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I changed to gens.--Ioshus (disp) 17:01, 7 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: Origin of Huns and Bulgars is explained here:
 http://hunnobulgars.blogspot.bg/
--Dulovokil146 (disputatio) 10:07, 5 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Huns and  Bulgars
Disputatio:Orchestra

message: Quid significat? Josisb 10:47, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglice 'String Orchestra', possibile. Non refert. Josisb 10:58, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have added a source for orchestra, however, this article needs a big cleanup ... ;-) --Roland (disp.) 11:04, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::We're using English, then? ;) I have rewritten the 'String Orchestra' section thuswise:

message: Orchestra chordarum continet:
* violinos (primos et secundos),
* violas,
* violoncellos, et
* bassos duplices.
Si orchestra cantat musicam baroccam, continet quoque clavicembalum.
I'm not certain about the words 'barocca' and 'clavicembalus', but they're my best guesses. Josisb 11:10, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you remove ? It also has barocus, -a, -um (one "c") for Germanice barock and cymbalum, -i for :de:Cembalo. --Roland (disp.) 11:33, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I did? I didn't mean to. Ah, I see. I deleted the heading 'Orchestra', because that is what the whole article is about, so it seemed redundant. I didn't notice the reference. I'll put it back. Josisb 17:13, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks :-) --Roland (disp.) 17:35, 5 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orchestra Chordarum

message: "Praeclari sunt instrumentos sicut violinos, violoncellos, flautos, tubas vel clarinettos: ii, nam, magna cum frequentia usati sunt in orchestram sinfonicam, ab omnibus compositoribus. Alii instrumenti, non clari, sicut oboi, cornus, usati minus quam iam dicti sunt."
Cornus et oboi saepius quam tubis in orchestra inventi sunt. Instrumenti non clari includant contrafaggota, violas Gambae, flugelcornus et cetera.
Alia quaestio; 'tuba' in Latina 'trumpet' significans, quid est nomen Latinum verbi Anglicae 'tuba'?
Ericbateson 10:32, 17 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bone domande. Et la 'tromba'? Potrebbe significare 'eine Trompette' oder 'eine Posaune.' Gli strumenti aeri formano la grossa parte della difficulta. Let's make a table, shall we? Kaiserliche und Kirchliche 18:43, 24 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
* Flauto, Flöte, flauto?
* Oboe, Hoboe, ?
* Clarinetto, Klarinette, clarinetto?
* Fagotto, Fagott, ?
* Corno, Horn, ?
* Tromba, Trompette, tromba?/tuba?
* Trombone, Posaune, tromba?/tuba?
* Tuba, [Baß-]Tuba, tromba?/tuba?
* Timpani, Pauken, tympanum
* Violino, Geige, violino
* Viola, Bratsche, viola
* Cello, Cello, violinculo
* Basso, Kontrabaß, basso duplico
thread_title:  Claritas instrumentorum? 

message: ... "orchestra" is locus est, ubi chorus ante scenam versatur. Nota bene: Vocabulum ipsum de theatro Graecorum veterum in usum hodiernum tralatum est. Mihi necesse videtur huius rei alicubi mentionem facere. - Bavarese (disputatio) 21:52, 11 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Iam aliquid scripsi in Disputatio:Theatrum.--Poecus (disputatio) 21:01, 13 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theatro Graeco ...
Disputatio:Bella revolutionaria Francica et Napoleonica

message: Nonne bella coalitionum melius verbum est? --Alex1011 19:05, 7 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bella Coitionum mulier scitula blandula esse mihi videtur, quae coeundi aut cupidissima aut peritissima est. Quae cum ita sint, argumentum paginae ab inscriptione quodam modo abhorret.--Irenaeus 18:42, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :bella coalitionalia? --Alex1011 11:44, 14 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

message: Secundum Cassell's et Traupman ambos, Anglicum coalition = Latinum coniunctio (vel etiam apud Cassell's consociatio). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:55, 25 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. An re vera fontem habes tituli Latini "Bella revolutionaria Francica et Napoleonica" in libro quem citavisti? Si titulum e lingua Anglica convertisti, tibi necesse est formulam  inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:06, 26 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :An pellucidius "Bella revolutionis Francicae et Napoleonica"? Fontes habemus nominum "belli revolutionis Gallicae" et "bellorum Napoleonicorum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 27 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Vehiculum

message: "Agmen" pro "tramine" addendum erat.  "Tramen" vero ridiculum videtur nomen.  "Hamaxostichus" monstrum, quis intelleget qui Harrium Potterum non lexit vel Graecam linguam non novit?  Optimum sit classicum nomen quod omnes Latine scientes facile intellegunt, ut censet quidam peritus quem novi.  Quale est "agmen".
thread_title:  tramen, agmen 

message: Cur "(-i, n.)" hic addimus? Declinatio iam est manifestus. IacobusAmor 12:03, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Modo ut Victionario nectamus. Est res bona. --Ioscius (disp) 13:30, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cur? Vicipaedia est (en)cyclopaedia, non dictionarium. Anglice: have you looked at how dead-tree encyclopedias handle declension? The Britannica, for example, s.v. Ox, doesn't bother to tell you that the plural of ox is oxen. If you want to know, you can go to a dictionary! IMHO, there's no need to indicate declension & gender in a Latin encyclopedia unless, perhaps, it isn't obvious (or it differs from what a novice might expect), as with, e.g., systema. IacobusAmor 14:14, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Again, Iacobe, it is only to link to victionary... it is not thought that people don't know the patently obvious declension of vehiculum, it is just to have a facile and readily visible link to victionary. --Ioscius (disp) 15:38, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Then why can't it be linked via the lemma, rather than via "-i, n."? or linked via some other uncluttered mechanism? IacobusAmor 15:40, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Easiest uncluttered way to indicate that it is a link to a dictionary (while a link on the headword itself would just be confusing).  As for why a link to the dictionary is useful, hopefully it can contribute to preventing imitations of the silly sections on en.Wikipedia where instead of the talking about the thing itself, they talk about the name of the thing (in ways irrelevant to the thing itself).  —Mucius Tever 03:26, 16 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: I must say that I'm with Iacobus here. Isn't everybody who ventures to come to our pages supposed to know enough Latin to know that the genitive of vehiculum is vehiculi. And if they don't, how much does the info "vehiculum,-i" help? I (almost) regret to say that such a helpfulness strikes me a bit naive. Instead of giving predictable information, I'd rather support giving info about exceptional morphology (such as iter, itineris) that may escape also people with decent Latin skills. Neander (disputatio) 17:21, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cur "(-i, n.)"?
Disputatio:Res publica democratica Germanica

message: * +2 (inspecta2) --Alex1011 08:17, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LATINITAS

message: Just checking: is Germana Democratica Respublica (the name currently given in the article) a well-attested form? or would a form that has the "usual" (Bradley's Arnold, Intro., no. 85) Latin word order, Democratica Germaniae Respublica, be better? IacobusAmor 13:30, 9 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that name, because the abbreviation fits in with the English GDR (isn't that a good reason?). Furthermore, it is also a litteral translation from German (or English): "German Democratic Republic" - not "Democratic Republic of Germany". Contrary to "Federal Republic of Germany", which is in German somewhat different: Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Respublica Foederalis Germania(e), not Germanica or Germana. -  Maybe in good Latin the word order of the present title would be somewhat different: Respublica Democratica German(ic)a --Alex1011 13:53, 9 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen civitatis 

message: Exordium hymni nationalis Auferstanden aus Ruinen certe non in resurrecti ... vertendum est. Nam cum in lingua theodisca auferstanden sit participium temporis perfecti cum sensu activo, latine resurrectus dici (vel cogitari) omnino non posse mi videtur: passivum sensum habet. --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:55, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse Resurgentes ex ruinis? Suscitati ex ruinis? Resurreximus ex ruinis? Lesgles (disputatio) 21:14, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  resurrecti ...