lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Area sacra di Sant’Omobono

message: Area Anglice = 'open space' (Traupman), 'a level or open space' (Cassell's). Significatio prima in L&S:
replies: text: area proprie dicitur locus vacuus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 11 Müll.: locus sine aedificio in urbe area; “rure autem ager appellatur,” Dig. 50, 16, 211.
Ergo, Area sacra di Sant'Omobon Anglice = 'Saint Homobonus's holy vacant lot'? The diagram shows that most of the archaeological site had columns and a roof, hardly "sine aedificio," and presumably therefore not a (Latin) area. According to Traupman, the space in front of a temple would indeed qualify as a (Latin) area (= English forecourt), but the temple itself wouldn't. If the Italian area is supposed to mean 'a general location', a vaguely defined space or site, is area the best Latin translation of it? Possibly, but just checking! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

text: Contra Georges, vox area:
ārea, ae, f. (areo) ( ... ) B) insbes.: I) ein ebener, freier Platz in der Stadt (Varr. LL. 5, 38), nach Art des englischen square, wie sie die Umgebung von Tempeln und Palästen bildeten, ar. Vulcani, ar. Capitolii, Liv.: ar. Capitolina, Suet., Palatina, Gell.: ar. fori, Suet.: dann aber auch selbständig angelegt waren und teils als Verkaufsplätze dienten, ar. pannaria, Curios. Urb. Reg. I, teils als Tummelplatz der Jugend, nunc et campus et areae repetantur, Hor. carm. 1, 9, 18. // In English: Georges first puts the basic meanig open space, then he continues in B: especially: I) an even, open space in town ( ...) like the English square, forming the vicinity of temples and palaces: area Vulcani, area Capitolii / Capitolina / Palatina .... // When Italians call the place "Square of St. Omobono, why not also in Latin?"--Utilo (disputatio) 16:08, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :The dictionaries seem to agree, but the archaeological site appears to be the ancient temples themselves, with their altars, not the public square that the modern church faces? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:36, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Now I've got what you are speaking about! Maybe an older area "profana" around the church was renamed "area sacra", when excavations began? Unfortunately I don't know.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:59, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Omnibus rite perpensis Latine forsitan melius scribendum esset "locus sacer"?--Utilo (disputatio) 17:22, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Nescio. Fortasse "Area sacra est locus archaeologicus" iam est OK. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:15, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Area
Disputatio:Concilium climaticum Cancunense

message: Secundum professorem Gildersleeve (#182.9), suffixum rectum est -ensis, non -iensis. Ergo, solum Cancun adiectivum Cancunensis gignere potest. Si rectum urbis nomen Cancunia est (ut in commentario hoc legimus), nomen adiectivum Cancuniensis necessario erit. Vide Sicilia et Siciliensis (non Sicilensis). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:09, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, sed fontem "Cancuniae" non iam vidi. De adiectivo "Cancunensi" fontem biologicum hebemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:16, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Per me mutare licet. Consequenter nomen quoque urbis in textu mutandum est. Neander (disputatio) 05:08, 5 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 5 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Adiectivum Cancun(i)ensis
Disputatio:Tenebrae

message: Pro "darkness" vocabulum usitatius tenebrae esse videtur (tenebrae: "1068th most frequent"; obscuritas: "4387th"). Praeterea Lewis et Short dicunt sub verbo obscuritas "Lit. (perh. only post-Aug.)", sed in hac pagina sensus et concretus et abstractus describuntur. Lesgles (disputatio) 12:26, 11 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget to allow for an article on Tenebrae, which surely will want to take pride of place (without a parenthesis). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:02, 11 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well that's the question, right? From an English perspective, that's the main meaning of "Tenebrae," but if Cicero saw the word he certainly wouldn't think of a Christian religious service. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:16, 11 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Legio Honoris

message: In commentariis "Ismail Kadare" et "Legio Honoris" et "Ordo (honor)," quid significat "Commendator et Magnus Officialis"? Anglice, haec verba fortasse convertenda sunt "Backer and Great Obliger." Apud Traupman, commendator = 'backer'; apud Cassell's, 'one that commends' (vel fortasse 'recommender'); apud ambos, vox officialis non invenitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 21 Martii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Commendator et Magnus Officialis"
Disputatio:Unitarianismus

message: Care 2806:2f0:90e7:f3c2:9ddf:acb7:57dc:a76d, utens ignote, you said you "Fixed typo," but you didn't: you inserted the word haereticus, which looks like a POV, so it has been deleted. If you want to add a section explaining why & how trinitarian churches consider Unitarianism heretical (if they do), that could be useful. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:21, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Haereticus''
Disputatio:Fraternitas Rosaceae Crucis

message: De lemmate, EleassarBR‎ dixit: <<"Rosacrucianismus" is the correct spelling, since "rose" in Latin (and Latin-based languages, e.g. Portuguese and Spanish) is "rosa", and so, we have "rosacrucianismo" as the correct translation in these languages.>> Is that why Vicipaedia uses the spellings aquilafer and lanager (from aquila and lana, respectively), instead of aquilifer and laniger ? ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:52, 3 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, you're quite right, Iacobe. If I had to coin a word for 'bearing roses', I'd opt for rosiger. I must add, though, that ros_crucianismus is a compound type we lack a clear model for in Latin (as can be seen from the rosa-/rosi- controversy). That's why I set myself to find a sourced title.  Neander (disputatio) 07:58, 4 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Four sourced titles below. Also, we have caprimulgus 'goat-milker', presumably from capra 'she-goat.' IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:59, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

text: ¶ Another form that bothers me quite a bit is mammalogia. Neander (disputatio) 07:58, 4 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :A problem with mammalogia hadn't occurred to me, but you may be onto something there. ¶ Meanwhile, at least some Rosicrucians call themselves by the Latin adjective Rosicrucianus -a -um, and so perhaps EleassarBR‎ needs to explain why that shouldn't be a good enough attestation for Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:53, 4 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Also, the examples cited by EleassarBR are in Portuguese and Spanish, not Latin. Other examples of Rosicrucianus -a -um as used in Latin by Rosicrucians themselves are found in  Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua and Lectorium Rosicrucianum and Societas Rosicruciana. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:01, 4 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The OED gives some Latin forms for Rosicrucian in its etymology: "< post-classical Latin roseae crucis (1614; < the genitive singular feminine of classical Latin roseus (see roseous adj.) + the genitive of crux : see cross n.) or rosae crucis (1614 or 1615; < the genitive of classical Latin rosa rose n.1 + the genitive of crux : see cross n.), in phrases such as fraternitas ac societas roseae crucis society and fraternity of the rose cross (1614), after German Orden des Rosenkreutzes order of the rose cross (1614). Compare post-classical Latin rosicrucia (1642), rosencruciana (a1654)." Lesgles (disputatio) 19:29, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

text: :::(The OED also has some interesting information on mammalogy, which I will post on Disputatio:Mammalogia. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:32, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC))
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Civitas Islamica (regimen)

message: Civitas Islamica (regimen) propono. Nomina nostra "Civitas Islamica in Iraquia et Levante" et "... Syria" sunt versiones versionum nominis anterioris; "Daesh" est abbreviatio Arabica nominis anterioris. Si hoc regimen nomen fere fixum habeat, certe est "Civitas Islamica" (al-Dawla al-Islāmiyya). Verbum discretivum "regimen" addo quia hic non de philosophia Islamica loquimur. Nomen quod propono cum titulo paginae Arabicae satis consonat, qui :ar:تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية ("regimen Civitas Islamica") scribitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Was ist Was

message: Utilitas enumerationis non intellego: igitur removi. Hic possumus de consilio editoriali loqui (e fontibus fidelibus secundariis) sed neque omnes libros neque omnes res enumerare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 10 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enumeratio
Disputatio Categoriae:Cartibula lusoria pugillaria

message: The name won't do as it is, because category names are normally plural (and "Cartibulum lusorium pugillaris" is not grammatical anyway). So, it could be "Cartibula lusoria pugillaria". Better check whether anyone has a different suggstion  before moving. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 10 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get singular name categories out of my system. With your new suggestion,Ill wait a few days to allow other opinions before moving.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:12, 11 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Brussus Andrews

message: Neander, a magazine is a particular kind of a periodical publication, so in changing magazina here to periodicum, you're changing a square into a rectangle, so to speak. L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E is a magazine, not merely a periodical. Granted: a Latin article on magazines hasn't been written yet, but it may well want to be! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:24, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Iacobe, ipse titulum q.e. Magazina in Periodicum mutasti, nec tantam differentiam significasti. Bona fide hanc viam secutus sum, praesertim cum de Latinitate magazinae dubitarem. Unde hoc verbum deprompsisti? Ex Traupman? Neander (disputatio) 19:36, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :I too am dubious, I confess, about Lat. magazina = "particular type of periodical". What is the source for that?

text: :Although the word "magazine" is common in English, I'm not sure the distinction is well-defined or universal. In the country district where I used to deliver mail, there was a simple three-way distinction between "newspaper", "comic" and "book". Books were weekly or monthly and were mainly aimed at women and gardeners. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 24 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Significatio figurativa verbi Anglici magazine recens esse videtur (OED: a saeculo XVIII). Siquidem forma latinizata "magazina" extra Vicipaediam inveniri non potest, vix licet nobis huiusmodi mutuationem fingere. Ceterum censeo eandem figurationem significationis thesauro evenisse. Itaque, si opus est differentiam inter Angl. periodical et magazine factam latine reddi, nonne vocabulis quae sunt commentarii periodici et thesaurus uti praestat? Neander (disputatio) 09:30, 24 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Secundum commentationes in aliis Vicipaediis, inter has saltem notiones distinctio facienda esse videtur:
* d:Q1002697 (32 linguae): periodical literature, publication périodique, periodico, Periodikum, периодическое издание 
** Periodicum
* d:Q11032 (141 linguae): newspaper, journal, giornale, Zeitung, газета
** Diarium
* d:Q41298 (92 linguae): magazine, magazine, rivista, Zeitschrift, журнал
** ??? Traupman dicit "ephemeris."
* d:Q5633421 (32 linguae): scientific journal, revue scientifique, comunicazione scientifica, wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschrift, научный журнал
** ??? (periodicum scientificum?)
Lesgles (disputatio) 20:09, 24 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazines & periodicals
Disputatio:Thelema (Crowley)

message: I wanted to add a discretiva word because this is not the primary use of the term, and I'm starting a page about a preceding use of it ... but I wasn't at all sure what discretiva word to choose. However, Crowley started this use, as Rabelais started the earlier one, that's clear at least, so I used their names to begin with. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De verbo discretivo
Disputatio:Corporación Mondragon

message: With commercial organizations, like Apple, we usually leave the trade name as it is, thus "Corporación Mondragon". If we are to translate it, Latin word order is more like Spanish than English, so "Societas Mondragon" or "Corporatio Mondragon" is perhaps better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Assentior! (Constat quidem inter antiquos corporationem idem valuisse atque incarnationem.) Neander (disputatio) 14:31, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Corporation, vocabulum Anglicum =
replies: text: ::Ainsworth's: sodalitium ; societas, vel communitas, corporata

text: ::White's: collegium ; corpus

text: ::Cassell's: sodalitas (religious), municipium, conlegium

text: ::Traupman: collegium

text: :Optimum usibus generalibus dicatum vocabulum ut videtur collegium est? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:03, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Attributio ad paginam Anglicam :en:Mondragon Corporation ab auctore in pagina ipsa incorporata est. Hic removi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributio
Disputatio Categoriae:Societates cooperativae

message: De verbo solo "Cooperativae" valde dubito quia (1) verbum in lexicis non reperio, (b) si adiectivum sit, cur femininum facimus? Praefero igitur "Societates cooperativae", sed an in glossario Latinitatis hodiernae haec locutio reperitur, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:34, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentarium Societas cooperativa iam habemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:06, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Rhythmus

message: Vocabulum classicum pro rhythmo in musica poëticaque numerus videtur. E.g. apud Lewis et Short s.v. "rhythmos" legimus "Cicero constantly has numerus instead of this word, which he writes only as Greek, Or. 20, 67; 51, 170)". Numerus certe alias significationes habet, quare incertus sum. Censeo aut paginam movendam, aut partem antiquum describentem usum scribendam esse. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:21, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to certain technical senses, Lewis & Short haven't a clue. Under definition II.E. of numerus, they hopelessly muddle four (!) distinct & mutually exclusive senses: "Musical measure, time, rhythm, harmony" (or as we'd call them nowadays, meter, tempo, rhythm, harmony). If numerus truly means all these things, it's so vague as to have no definitional utility whatsoever. The present disposition of Vicipaedia's articles on technical musical matters (including the names of instruments) is unsatisfactory, perhaps in part because so much novelty has occurred in (European) music since the middle ages and we're stuck with a tiny basic vocabulary to describe it. However, reserving numerus for 'rhythm', metrum for 'meter', and tempus for 'tempo' might work until the Latin technical vocabulary of music from the 15th & 16th centuries can be more fully explored. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:15, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerus
Disputatio:Numerus transcendens

message: How do you think "Liouville's number" are to be translated? I wrote "Liouvillei numeri", but I don't think it's perfect.
Quo "Liouville's number" scripturum esse putatis? Scripsi "Liouvilleos numeros", sed non puto bonum est.--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 13:10, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, unless there is an attested Latin version of the surname, we treat it as indeclinable. So "numerus Liouville". Lesgles (disputatio) 19:01, 23 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok, thanks. I'm going to edit. --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 21:52, 23 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Liouville's number

message: Haec pagina ab usore Usor:Toadino2 e conversione paginae :it:Numero trascendente aucta est. Auctoribus illius paginae gratias agimus.
thread_title:  Pagina aucta
Disputatio:Chiare, fresche et dolci acque

message: "Fluminis Sorgae fons . . . quae poetae hoc carmen inspiravit." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:11, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
"The Sorga River's source . . . which breathed this song upon the poet." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:06, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Si tuum commentarium bene intellexi, verba nunc emendata sunt. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:51, 25 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Genus?
Disputatio:Universitas Gonzagae

message: To see how the "creanda" formula works & looks. An invitation for the writing of more pages? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:34, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the idea, but it does like too much here, maybe especially since it's combined with the copious linking strategy (I personally wouldn't link aedificium, urbs, etc.). I made a proposal at Disputatio Formulae:Creanda that might help; I'm not sure. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, gosh, that's getting to be too many links. This page, incidentally, is being worked on by student Vicipaedians, so let's not be hyperactive, just helpful :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:52, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I removed some of the sillier links. For the current consensus see (and of course develop) the very recent discussion at the Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:14, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Experiment

message: Usor:IacobusAmor added some text translated from :en:Gonzaga University on en:wiki. The help of the editors of that page is acknowledged. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial attribution
Disputatio Formulae:Creanda

message: Would it help readability to have the blue link smaller or in superscript? E.g. Iulia Gayet (fr). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:51, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By coincidence I just suggested this on Iacobus's talk page. Such a change would be easy to make: anyone could do it right now, to test reactions. I won't, because I'm travelling, but go ahead if you like. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Factumst! Safe travels! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:40, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De legibilitate
Disputatio:Baskin​-Robbins

message: Venumdo, "to sell, used chiefly of the sale of captured slaves (not in Cic.)"? Lesgles (disputatio) 23:24, 28 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's: to offer for sale, to sell; esp. of captives'. The suggested point is the offering, not the selling. Whether that consideration trumps the ancient association with the trade in captives is unknown over here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:29, 28 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :As a term for what pedlars, shopkeepers and marketing people do, we can also use "venditare" (classical). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venumdat
Disputatio:Leonardus Nimoy

message: "Nomen dedit in 1953." He gave the name into 1953: I don't get that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Non intelleximus quoque, sed nomen est verbo nomimen melius, quidquid id significat. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apparently that's the year he joined the army, but whether this sentence is intended to mean that, I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That explains it then. Cassells: "nomen dare, edere, profiteri, to go for a soldier, enlist, Liv." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oh, well, OK then. I guess there might be other readers, like me, who don't immediately understand the phrase without a context, but I can't object on grounds of Latinity! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Let me change it to militatus.Sorry about that.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:06, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Changed again to Exercitui conscriptus.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:19, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non intellego
Disputatio:Allāh

message: I propose merging this page, which is only about the word, with Deus (Islam), which is about the subject. That would be in accord with Wikipedia practice in general -- Wikipedia doesn't do articles only about words -- and would have the incidental benefit of doubling the length of one of the Myriad articles :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:12, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but Allah is the article in the 10,000 pages, so it'd want to be kept, and the merger would mean eliminating the article on Deus (Islam), and by analogy it might therefore imply banning any article-to-be on God in Christianity and God in Jainism and God in Abrahamic religions, not to mention the Trinitas and other notions of godhood collected at :en:Category:Conceptions of God. All the major wikis have an article on Allah, and all except German appear to have a separate article on God in Islam. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:04, 30 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree that Allāh would be the one to keep. "Deus" is the Latin translation of "Allāh" in sources I have seen, but we can still use Allāh as our pagename if we choose to.

text: :I wouldn't ban anything in the universe if a good article can be written on it. I think the analogies you suggest aren't threatening really: I'm saying there should be one article on an identifiable topic rather than two.

text: :This struck me as an unhelpful split (or fork) when I encountered an instance of the confession "Non est deus nisi Allah et Mahometus est nuntius eius" with deus linked to deus (very logical), Allah linked here (very logical) and eius linked to Deus (Islam). Hang on, someone's playing a silly game with that last one, I thought: eius refers to Allah, so linking it to a different article confuses the reader. So, I went on to think, why do we have the two separate articles anyway? And I don't know. The texts complement one another as two parts of the same subject.

text: :However, it's only an idea. If others think I'm wrong, so be it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 30 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribuenda
Disputatio:Isaacus (Islamus)

message: Nonne haec res pars est historiae seu fortunae Isaac? Multae Vicipaediae satis magnae paginam huic comparandam non habent. Contribuenda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio ego. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:29, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cur? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 09:01, 16 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Cur generaliter "contributionista" sum, hoc autem in casu mea sententia non est fortis. Certe interpretatio Islamica ab Iudaeo-Christiana haud paulo differt. Possumus ne fortasse partem brevem de Isaaco Islamico in Isaac addere, ac nexum ad hanc commentationem elaboratiorem? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:37, 16 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribuenda
Disputatio:Aurea Chersonesus

message: Fontes certe habemus pro "Chersoneso aurea" (cras citabo!) De "paeninsula Malayana" (nomine Latino) fontem nullum habeo. Nomina "paeninsula Malaesiana" et "paeninsula Malacca", nullis fontibus citatis, errores mihi videntur. An recte distinguo? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:57, 4 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Scientia materiarum

message: ... materierum? materiarum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Typo pro materierum, sed ut videtur, forma primae declensionis saepius adhibetur. L&S: <<“et materies qualitas ingenii, materia fabris apta,” Front. II. p. 481 Mai.; but this distinction is not observed by class. writers.>> IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:20, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus