lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Communicatio felium

message: Gen. pl. est 'felium' 67.41.113.198 23:14, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi, amice. --Robert.Baruch 01:36, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

message: Nonne murmuratio melior esset? Vibratio describeret quendam corporis motum potius quam sonum, mea sententia.Tergum violinae 08:53, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Melior. Sedne murmurare pro purr non attestatur? --Robert.Baruch 13:04, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quippe et maumare non attestatur... :( --Robert.Baruch 15:46, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Cum de voce vibranti loquimur, tremulam vocem vel tremorem vocis significamus. Mea quoque opinione melius est dicere felem murmurare (ita e.g. Cassell's s.v. "purr"). Cum tamen murmuratio variorum sonorum multiplicitatem describere videatur (a "roar" ad "hum"), forsitan melius sit hoc verbum ita modificare, ut soni exiguitas pateat: felis murmillat vel felis submurmurat/summurmurat. (In lingua Fennica sonus felis murmillantis cum sono stamina nendi ["the cat spins"] comparatur.) --Neander 20:04, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Hui! "Purr" est in Cassell's? Non inveni (sed fortasse fontem malam utor. Bene: si attestatur, utamur! Submurmurare est bene. --Robert.Baruch 22:16, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Meum Cassell's (ubi purr/murmurare reperitur): Cassell's Latin Dictionary Latin-English English-Latin by D.P.Simpson. Macmillan 1977. ISBN 0-02-522580-4 thumb-indexed. --Neander 23:00, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Opus est mihi invenio et fortasse imagines facio et OCR ago. Gratias, amice! --Robert.Baruch 23:23, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vibratio
Disputatio:Bulla uranii 2007

message: "Pustula uranii 2007" non intellego. Propono "Pretium uranii anno 2007 auctum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Egomet "Summum uranii pretii anni 2007" malo--Xaverius 19:46, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :He's looking for a Latin equivalent of the financially transferred sense of the English word bubble. Cassell's says a bubble is a bulla. IacobusAmor 22:47, 17 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I know he's looking for that, but I suspect there isn't one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Then perhaps we need to use pustula. It would hardly do not to be able to express the notion. Pantocrator 12:52, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::No, if we decide to translate 'bubble', 'pustula' is not the word to do it.  'Pustula' is a blister.  Mind you, there may well be an appropriate Latin term, as the first 'bubble' so called was apparently the South Sea Bubble in the early 1700s.  —Mucius Tever
replies: text: :::::I would support bulla. I originally chose pustula because of Cassell's "a bubble on boiling water", and also because pustulae are kind of disgusting. Like financial bubbles. --Robert.Baruch 17:33, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Certe bulla melior quam pustula pro ha re est, aut credo.--Xaverius 21:03, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus 

message: Anglice est spot price, qui non est conditio futura (Anglice: Futures contract), sed conditio instans. Fortasse pretium instans? --Robert.Baruch 18:45, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretium "statim" 

message: Uranium naturalis est compositio uranii cum compositione isotoporum aequo quam ex terra, non transvertens ad alium compositionem isotoporum. Quare scripsi naturali uranii pro uranii naturalis... nescio. :/ --Robert.Baruch 18:53, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "naturali" uranii  pretio
Disputatio:Pupulus nivalis

message: Salve mi Neander, certe vidi citationem pupulus nivalis sed quoque homo et quoque vir niveus. Ecce Wolfram Kautzky apud Nuntios Latinos:
Quaedam agentura itineraria assecurationem offert, qua clientes caveant, ne sibi homo nivalis damnum afferat. Cum ipse hominem nivalem re vera exsistere persuasum habeat, se clientibus facultatem cautionis dare velle, si ab uno animali huius speciei petantur, Nigel Gifford, cui agentura est, affirmat. Se anno 1978, cum per montes Tibetanos ambularet, in altitudine 6.300 metrorum sine dubio ingentia vestigia in nive impressa invenisse. Gifford autem minime sollicitus est de modo probationis eorum, quos vir niveus aggressus sit:
Displicitne tibi? An hoc spectat magis ad yeti quam snow man? --Ioscius  ∞ 21:21, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kautzky de Yeti (:fi:Lumimies 'homo nivalis' a Finnis appellato) loqui videtur. Quam ob causam mirabar, utrum "homine nivali" Yeti an pupulum nivalem significare volueris. "Pupulum nivalem" ex Pitkäranta sumpsi. Quod vocabulum non est ad Finnicum sermonem fictum, nam "snowman" Finnice "senex nivalis" (:fi:Lumiukko) appellatur. --Neander 21:47, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Et nos ei Yeti dicimus homo nivalis sed tantum cum adiectivo abominabilis (fortasse potest esse quoque quoddam monstrum in Canada et/sive Alasca).

text: :Et Morgan habet pro "snowman" pupulus nivalis. Fortasse est analogia cum linguis Hisapnica muñeca et Italicis pupazzo? Nulla responsa invenit pupulus nivalis apud Googlen. Neque confiteor homo/vir nivalis/niveus multa boni invenit.

text: :Linguae Slavicae magna parte habent radicem niv- + suffixum auctoris. (modo pro mentibus curiosis ;])

text: :Ad minimum habemus locum ad Yeti spectantem =]

text: :--Ioscius  ∞ 22:13, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Ita vero. Itaque suadeo ut in symbolá (vel "re") de Yeti tractanti et "homo nivalis" et (confusionis vitandae causá) "Yeti" commemoretur. Cum autem de simulacro illo "snowman" appellato agitur, quin Morgan et Pitkäranta auctoribus dicamus "pupulum nivalem"? --Neander 22:55, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Bene. Omni consentior. Cras ambas scribam. --Ioscius  ∞ 23:08, 18 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de nomine

message: Ut est most meus, sentior categorias huic commentationi male selegisse. Andrea, Iacobe, auxilium ferte! Gratias! --Ioscius  ∞ 13:25, 19 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  categoriae
Disputatio:Evaporatio

message: Consentior Tergo Violinae Latinitatem tuam ameliorari in dies. 
Nihilominus non intellexi hanc sententiam "Etiam dissimilis fervendo". Estne Anglice "Although they boil (you did suggest fervere for "boil", right?) differently..."?
--Ioscius  ∞ 11:47, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "It differs from boiling ..." Pantocrator 13:50, 20 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: dubsig
Disputatio:Magma

message: Pantocrator, changing TV's "[a vocabulo Graeco "μάγμα" ductum]" to "(a Graece μάγμα)" may have added an improvement or two, but it made one thing worse: Graece is an adverb; it can't be governed by a preposition. IacobusAmor 11:08, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed bag
Disputatio:Felinologia

message: Cur Felinologia contra Ailurologia? Latinos nominis fontes non protulisti. IacobusAmor 12:37, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vere, mihi quoque nescitur. Puto felinologia est verbum Russicum et Europicum Orientali. Ailurophobia, autem, habemus. Quod agamus? --Robert.Baruch 15:25, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Google: felinology (4230 hits), ailurology (216), felinologia (27100 hits), ailurologia (0 hits) --Robert.Baruch 15:31, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Alcoranus

message: Unum ex rationibus quo habui mergendo huic erat discrepantia textus Latine inter paginam hanc et Fatiha. Non correspondunt, nec utrum texto officiale, a nexu meo , correspondit. Quis fons hic? Pantocrator 22:10, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Litterae Suratae 1

message: Care 188.173.173.248, utens sine nomine, mutasti "non est" in "nec eșce," sed "ș" non est littera et "eșce" non est verbum Latinum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:26, 11 Februarii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: De vocabulo ''eșce''
Disputatio:Orbita

message: I chose this because it is mentioned in Usor:Robert.Baruch/Astronomical_terms and corresponds to the English term. Nevertheless, a check on Google showed mant scientific works using orbitae and none with orbites (I had to use these case to avoid false hits). I therefore choose orbita for the main title and continue to mention gyrus. As normal, I don't want to add any more terms unless actual use in astronomical texts is presented. Pantocrator 22:49, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's: [English–Latin] "orbit, orbis, circulus, ambitus" + [Latin–English] "orbita . . . a wheel-rut, mark of a wheel" (e.g.) "orbita veteris culpae, bad example." IacobusAmor 11:06, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :For whatever reason the astronomers likened an orbit to a wheelrut.--24.107.235.195 11:10, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Yeti

message: Aegrotus leprosus et ideo exulatus. Lepra faciem valde deformat.
Lepra hominibus execrationem imposuit, prope mortuae habitae sunt, et funebres "viventes" pro eis collocaverunt, quibus in perpetuum e societate expulsi sunt.
In multis regionibus leprosi homines adhuc sedibus expelluntur.
thread_title: Non fratruelis, sed frater

message: Potestne quis rebus vicipaedianis peritus explicare quare vocales apud nos Thibeticae ut diacriticae non videntur? Estne convertenda haec formula apud en:? --Ioscius  ∞ 13:27, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Formulam quam iam creavi imposui. An recte? Sed quaestionem tuam non intellego. Vocalem e video. Vocalis a, sicut in linguis Indicis, minime scribitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :e non video... Hem eam video, sed non est diacritica. Apud en: meis oculis est diacritica. --Ioscius  ∞ 14:24, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: :Neque litterae coniunguntur. Primam vocalem in animo habui ་ esse. Quoque ེ oportet videri ut diacritica, sed mihi maeste non... --Ioscius  ∞ 14:27, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: Mihi ignosce sed ego nihil uideo praeter '???' etc. Operatne? Pantocrator 22:27, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Egomet video signa dua scripti Tibetanici, sed nescio quomodo tu signa videre potes.--Xaverius 22:35, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Credo eis qui signa in abecedariis peregrinis videre volunt, neque hucusque vident, oportet ad paginam e.g. Anglicam ire de lingua respectiva: ibi nexus downloadicos alphabetorum reperiunt. Id praecipue Pantocratori dico: quomodo difficultates Ioscii emovere possim, nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de scriptura Thibetica falsa aspectu
Disputatio:Anna Comnena

message: "Cum familia Nicephori potentior esset et fortasse Alexio imminere posset, matrimonium amoris non fuit, quamquam maritus ex ea genuit liberos quattuor ..."
replies: text: Retraxi quia non satis intellego et POV video: an recte? Quomodo "familia Nicephori potentior esset" ac familia imperatoris ipsius, oportet explicare. "Matrimonium amoris non fuit:" de hac re oportet fontem citare. Re vera multa matrimonia in familiis regnantibus "amoris non sunt", sed ex eis liberi fiunt; igitur ratio verbi "quamquam" non intellego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubia
Disputatio:Netio

message: [Quae sequuntur e pagina Disputatio Usoris:Fabullus#De infinitivo hic repetivi --Fabullus 19:10, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)]</br>
Salve Fabulle! Primo videas, sodes, disputationem, in qua "fervere est alteratio ..." dixi constructionem syntactice infelicem esse. Collocutor autem nere symbolá exemplo adhibitá meum iudicium in dubium vocavit, et alibi quoque hac constructione usus est. Quia hoc submolestum mihi videtur periculum, tuam opinionem rogare statui. Intellego quidem te "nere" infinitivo usum esse, cum "netio" et "netus,-us", etsi quam facillime e verbo derivari possint, philologicá attestatione carere videantur. (Non ignoro "netum" ἅπαξ λεγόμενον reperiri 'filum' significantem, qui sensus mihi quidem fortuitus et contextu provocatus videtur.) Nihilo minus equidem lemmatis loco vel "netionem" vel "netum" praetulerim infinitivo, quippe quae cum "derivatione voluntaria" a Varrone proposita (i.e. salvo sensu) congruant atque infinitivo melius "A est B" generis constructionem expleant. An forsitan hac in re nimis puristicus videar? --Neander 11:35, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Et tu, Neander, salve! Tamquam cum principio tuo - infinitivos evitandos esse - consentio, a verbis novis quae sunt netus et netio abhorreo. Placeatne ars nendi? --Fabullus 14:59, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Mihi quidem netus non eo mirior videtur quam, puta, nutus (< nuere). Grammatice enim nomina in -tus cadentia nomina et actionis et acti esse possunt. Netus apud Mart. Capellam (2.114) nomen acti est, at potentialiter (grammaticá permittente) etiam nomen actionis est, licet (fortuito, ut credo) attestatione philologica careat. Sed fortasse hic potius linguista quam philologus loquor. Si netus tibi displicet, meam opinionem (grammaticá generativá imbutam) ingerere nolens facile adducor, ut lemma q.e. ars nendi (vel actio nendi) approbem. --Neander 19:46, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC) (modificavi) --Neander 12:41, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Equidem non ausim uno tantum exemplo nisus netum nominis actionis vice adhibere. Itaque, pace tua, artem nendi praefero. --Fabullus 13:50, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Sit ita. --Neander 15:05, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Obiectionem meam contra netionem retraxi: vide nunc paginam de netione agentem. --Fabullus 19:10, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
[Finis verborum repetitorum --Fabullus 19:10, 23 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)]</br>
thread_title:  De infinitivis in lemmate evitandis
Disputatio:Orchestra philharmonica Neo-Eboracensis

message: In difference from the band names the names of orchestras are translates in most languages. It seems to me that there is no reason to make an exception for latin. I suppose this article should be renamed. Unfortunately, my abilities in latin are poor, so I don't know the correct translation. Perhaps, Orchestra Philharmonica Novi Eboraci? --Tuba Mirum 00:54, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Orchestra Philharmonica Novoeboracensis. --Ioscius  ∞ 01:06, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen latinum
Disputatio:Quattuor elementa

message: Latinitas quidem est pessima. Nescio quare PC mutaverit gradum Latinitatis... --Ioscius  ∞ 01:08, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you truly think my Latin is unintelligible, you may revert to the previous version (but I don't think you do). The pessima level is intended for the most egregious cases only, where we'd better not have an article at all. I reverted the first tag without discussion because it was placed by an unknown user; and if the tag system is to mean anything not just anyone should be able to grade articles that way. Pantocrator 01:15, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Have -5 then, if you like. It's intelliglible, but illegible, which user anonymous rightly wanted to point out. --Ioscius  ∞ 01:17, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I corrected the few grammatical problems I found (I think fine saec. 18 should be in the ablative like that). On the other hand, I may be not be quite right about the alchemical principles, but that's a different thing. Pantocrator 03:49, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::You might work on this sentence, whose literal gloss will point up a few problems: Multi antiqui quinta, aether sive quintessentia dicitur, addiderunt, caelum designans. 'Many ancient authors. A fifth female. The upper air or quintessence is mentioned. They added. He/she/it designating the sky.' (And factually is that right? Ancient authors really spoke of a quintessentia? That doesn't look like an ancient word; a medieval innovation perhaps?) IacobusAmor 10:01, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::It's supposed to be 'Many ancients added a fifth, called aether or quintessentia, designating the sky/heavens.' I agree that the terms may be mediaeval, but then alchemy in the Latin language is mediaeval. Pantocrator 19:20, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: latinitas
Disputatio:Ursus (discretiva)

message: Since our main article on bears is Ursidae (judging by the interwikis), that should be the primary meaning of ursus. For obvious reasons, only Latin has this collision of Linnaean and common names. Pantocrator 20:04, 25 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that is the primary meaning, and most of the incoming links assume that meaning. The collision you mention is not a critical issue -- I think it can be sorted out in the first sentences of the article, as I've tried to do. Anyway, I've now started the article, and I don't think the suggested move is now necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm tidying up the discretiva page. I removed the bear-and-bull story because I don't know any evidence that the Latin word "ursus" is used in that financial way. If I'm wrong, please reinstate it with a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm removing this for the present "* Ursus theodoricus sive ursus Thaddeus (anglice: Teddy) res lusoria est, pupa ursiforma, primo fabricabatur a Steiff" because it doesn't lead to an article on the subject and there seems to be some dispute over the name. When we have an article, under whatever name, the line can be reinserted! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:32, 10 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Primum movens

message: Non nimis peritus sum philosophia Thomae Aquinatis, sed eum putavi usum esse primum movens. Video vicipaedias Danicam, Nordicam, et Suecicam primum motorem habere, Anglicam atuem primum movens. Ergo cupidus discendi peto rationem, qua titulus hic prater primum motorem teneatur? --Ioscius  ∞ 10:13, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: nomen
Disputatio:Nota glutinosa

message: PC movit hanc commentationem a nota adglutinata ad nota glutinis cum explicatione grammatica, quod nullo modo intelligo. Titulus prior fuit Anglice glued note, hic autem note of glue. Ille titulus quidem melius exprimit sensum nominis Anglici, an fallor? 
Fortasse nomen optimum esset nota glutinosa. 
--Ioscius  ∞ 11:05, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Optime, esto nota glutinosa. Pantocrator 11:29, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I wouldn't say it's really  ("gluey, viscous") either; a post-it is more tacky/sticky than glutinous.  Why not 'adhaesiva' instead of 'glutinosa'?  —Mucius Tever 20:11, 28 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de nomine
Disputatio:Lingua Slovena

message: Cur, Andrea, revertisti additionem linguae Resianicae (si illo nomine recte appellatur) in hanc commentationem? --Ioscius  ∞ 09:12, 28 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic et in Linguae Slavonicae. Id feci quia anonymi, nexus rubros sine fontibus in indices addentes, nihil utile faciunt, et quia "linguam Resianicam" in commentatione Anglica de linguis Slavicis non repperi. Sed, si re vera haec lingua exstat, rursus adde s.t.p., mi Iosci. An fontem nominis habemus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 28 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vide si vis :en:Resian dialect et mea verba in Taberna.

text: :Fontem autem non habeo, sed Italica Vicipaedia habet dialetto resiano. --Ioscius  ∞ 09:43, 28 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

text: :Ego dissentior hanc esse dialectum sed quidem linguam propriam. --Ioscius  ∞ 09:44, 28 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: lingua resianica
Disputatio:Gasia nobilia

message: I think I accidentally edited an old version, sorry about that. All I really wanted to do was change scitum sum to scitum est (disregarding the fact that scire isn't the right verb here). PC you have a tendency to write some sentences in the first person. Not really sure why. --Ioscius  ∞ 12:39, 30 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: edit
Disputatio:Res publica Congensis

message: Articulum haec diu a creatione fere quinque annis habuit titulum != lemmam. Propter fontibus carentem, non emendauit adhuc. Pantocrator 02:52, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Supra scriptum nemo Latine intellegere potest; si lingua Latina non potes scribere, quaeso, scribe tua lingua. Aliter idiota vanus videaris.--Rafaelgarcia 14:44, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus, lemma!
Disputatio Categoriae:Genera felium

message: Robert, you seem to be trying here for a parallel to :en:Category:Cat breeds, and Cassell's does say that genus is Latin for 'breed' (substantive), but you may be creating some dissonance with biological categories well-established around the wikis, in which Genera felium would imply that each of the things to be compiled is a genus in the family Felidae. Compare, for example, :Categoria:Genera avium = :en:Category:Genera of birds. I don't know what to suggest to get out of this difficulty. In botany, the analog with "breed" is probably cultivarietas 'cultivar' and varietas. Maybe those terms will suggest something. IacobusAmor 18:40, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Varietas might work... --Robert.Baruch 19:33, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : How about variantia, which means variation? I think varietas means variety in the sense of diversity. That is, something can have varietas but something cannot be a varietas. --Robert.Baruch 02:08, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :: If there are no further objections, can I change the name to Variantiae felium? --Robert.Baruch 12:33, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: The word you're looking for may be seminium. --Neander 12:48, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Varietas is probably better Latin. What does seminium (incorrect gen.pl. of semen) have to do with it? Pantocrator 12:50, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Nothing ... but seminium "a race, stock, breed" (Varro and other authors) is indeed a mot juste. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I'll accept seminium or varietas. Any preferences? --Robert.Baruch 17:19, 4 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Lingua Latina per se illustrata

message: Fortasse, ut officium encyclopaediae melius impleamus, aliquis annum primae editionis seu annum seriei inceptae addere potest? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene, iam repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annus editionis
Disputatio:Hans Henning Ørberg

message: Hans H. Ørberg (Latine: Ioannes Montaurius) ... cur ergo lemma non sit Ioannes Montaurius? --Gabriel Svoboda 10:02, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a cite for this? So far as I can tell he seems to have used his vernacular name even in Latin. (I'd like to know because I'm writing my syllabus for Latin 103, and following the previous teacher's example, it is itself in Latin) --Iustinus 19:18, 1 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Uranometria

message: E. g.:
* 1660: Atlas Coelestis seu Harmonia Macrocosmica, a Andrea Cellario, Amstelodami.
* 1729: Atlas Coelestis, a Ioh. Flamstedeio, Londoni.
* 1742: Atlas Coelestis, a Ioh. Gabriele Dopelmaeiro, Norimbergae.
* 1872: Atlas Coelestis Novus, ab Eduardo Heis, Coloniae ad Rhenum.
"Atlas caelestis" was used by John Seller only as:
* 1680: Atlas Caelestis : containing the systems and theoryes of the planets, the constellations of the stars, and other phenomina's of the heavens, with necessary tables relating thereto, a Ioh. Sellero, Londoni.
--Bay Flam 03:50, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Others may disagree, but I believe "caelestis" would be the more correct classical spelling. "Coelestis" is typical of early modern Latin. So, since we prefer classical spelling in our normal writing, what I would do would be to use "coelestis" when we are talking about the proper name of one of those particular works, but "caelestis" as a general term. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 3 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Star atlas" is usually "atlas coelestis" in Latin.