lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Dorcestria (discretiva)

message: Quite a long way from Dorchester. I can only find one example on Google of "Dorchester-on-Sea", in a local paper making fun of a silly mistake in a tourist brochure. Here's the article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well. My bad. Never been there. Might have also been confused with :en:Walmington-on-Sea--Xaverius 13:36, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)

text: High time we had an article on that ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:16, 1 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the sea? 

message: Yes, "Dorcastrum" was bad, but "Dorcastrensis" is used by several authors from medieval times to 19th century. In the case of Birinus the phrase "Birinus Episcopus Dorcastrensis" is seen in Leland's Itinerary, followed by the note that Birinus died "Dorcastriae", so maybe "Dorcastria" is worth noting as a Latin name for Dorchester-on-Thames. "Dorcestria" is certainly found also -- not sure which is commoner. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very confusing indeed -- As I tried to convey, it is the amalgamation of two different Anglosaxon names into one/two Latin toponym. What to do?--Xaverius 13:36, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :For what it's worth, Graesse (p. 664) has "Dorcestria (hundredum): Dorchester, Hundred im SO. von Oxfordshire" and "Dorcinia: Dorchester sö. Oxford, Oxfordshire". Lesgles (disputatio) 17:07, 1 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::(I had this on Andrew's Disputatio, but I copy it here as well)--Xaverius 17:22, 1 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
*For Birinus and Dorchester-on-Thames
**The MGH (which I'd follow) has 
***Dorcestria: hic
***Dorcescestria: hic
***No entries for Dorcastr*
**Google Books:
***No entries for Dorcastr* 
***in Dorcestria/de Dorcestria/Dorcestria apud Mercios (last one is a good 'un): hic
*Dorcastria (w/o ref. to Birinus):
**Google Books: hic
Dorcestria apud Mercios has a nice ring to it, plus it is accurate, and has a reference (which I found in a Goergian book  but can't really tell if it is itself quoting an earlier text). What could we do?--Xaverius 13:56, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)

text: Yes, when I started looking seriously, I found that "Dorcestria" and "Dorcestrensis" are much commoner than other spellings, although there is evidence for "Dorcastria -ensis" also. I love "Dorcestria apud Mercios"; "Dorcestria (Oxoniensis)" would work too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 1 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Thames
Disputatio Categoriae:Dorcestria apud Mercios

message: Certe movenda. "Dorcastria" aut "Dorcestria"? Incertus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontes quae sunt aetatis Victorianae certe Dorcestriam dant, nulla donat Dorcastrum: hic et hic

text: --Xaverius 13:33, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Familia Bronteana

message: Although the adjective "Bronteana" certainly exists, I don't feel sure that "Familia Bronteana" would be a typical Latin term. In Romance languages, and in English too, one doesn't normally use this adjective suffix: one says familia Brontë, la famille Brontë, the Brontë family. To take a political family, Google claims 42,000 familia Churchill (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, etc.) and just 3 famìlia Churchilliana (all 3 Portuguese). Can we find any better evidence for this usage? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The suffix -(i)anus remains productive, and (2) the adjective Bronteana, with or without a diacritic, is well established. Perhaps the lemma should be Gens Bronteana, following a classical pattern? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:50, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, as I said, the adjective "Bronteanus" exists, and this title may be quite OK. I can find adjectives differently formed in similar use, e.g. "familia Salica", "familia Medic(a)ea", and this already reassures me. The question arose in my mind because other languages don't seem to do this ... but maybe Latin is simply more versatile :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus 

message: UV, delevisti categorias "Auctores Anglici," "Poetae Angliae," "Scriptores Angliae," "Scriptores mythistoriarum Angliae," dicens "familia non est homo," sed categoriae huius commentarii in vicipaedia Anglica sunt "English women poets," "Victorian novelists," "Victorian women writers," "Women of the Victorian era," "English people of Irish descent," "People from Thornton and Allerton." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:20, 31 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae
Disputatio:Ilf et Petrov

message: UV, delevisti categorias "Auctores Russici" et "Scriptores fabularum brevium," et "Scriptores scaenici" et "Scriptores mythistoriarum Russiae" et "Scriptores Russiae," dicens "not an article about a single individual," sed categoriae huius commentarii in vicipaedia Anglica sunt "Russian writers," "Soviet novelists," "Soviet male writers," "20th-century Russian male writers," "Soviet short story writers," "20th-century short story writers," "Pseudonymous writers." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:14, 31 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - English wikipedia is not too strict regarding categorization. I try to keep :Categoria:Scriptores (and in general :Categoria:Homines) and all its subcategories clear of articles about anything that is not a writer/a single human individual, such as articles about books (a book is not a scriptor) or articles about groups of persons/groups of writers. By keeping only articles about single human individuals in :Categoria:Homines, I can easily find out which articles lack year-of-birth-categories and year-of-death-categories and add those missing categories.

text: In case one day there is (in addition to the article Ilf et Petrov) an article about Ilf only and/or an article about Petrov only, then those articles should of course be added to appropriate subcategories of :Categoria:Scriptores.

text: Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 13:39, 1 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae
Disputatio:Beaumontius et Fletcherus

message: Nonne Beaumontius et Fletcherus? Vide subscriptionem imaginis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 15 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! Thanks! Though one wonders why it's not Belmontius. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:11, 15 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus 

message: UV, delevisti categoriam "Scriptores scaenici," dicens "not an article about a single individual," sed categoriae huius commentarii in vicipaedia Anglica sunt "English dramatists and playwrights" et "Writing duos." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 31 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - English wikipedia is not too strict regarding categorization. I try to keep :Categoria:Scriptores (and in general :Categoria:Homines) and all its subcategories clear of articles about anything that is not a writer/a single human individual, such as articles about books (a book is not a scriptor) or articles about groups of persons/groups of writers. By keeping only articles about single human individuals in :Categoria:Homines, I can easily find out which articles lack year-of-birth-categories and year-of-death-categories and add those missing categories.

text: There are (in addition to the article Beaumontius et Fletcherus) articles about Franciscus Beaumontius only and about Ioannes Fletcherus only. These two articles are of course members of subcategories of :Categoria:Scriptores.

text: Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 13:37, 1 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae
Disputatio:Litterae antiquae

message: The major wikis don't entirely agree on the definition of this lemma, but it's one of the 10,000 listed lemmata ("which every wiki should have"), so Vicipaedia needs to say something about the topic, whatever it may be. This text, based on the version in the English wiki but incorporating a variety of other details, should suffice until someone with particular knowledge of the subject thoroughly revises it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 7 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorandum
Disputatio Formulae:Capita civitatum trium Galliarum

message: There are two red links on here going to deleted articles. Should they both be replaced with Valoniae? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:20, 13 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for pointing this out. I felt that the ruins of Alauna should have a separate article, but, as you see, I never wrote it! So for the present I have redirected to Valoniae, which is its modern replacement though not on the same site. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 13 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Excellent! Lesgles (disputatio) 01:47, 14 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nexus rubri
Disputatio:Obsidio

message: Obsidio means also a siege on land. My Spanish dictionary at least gives asedio (i.e., land siege) as the first entry. How could we clarify that this page is about economic blockade?--Xaverius 11:12, 16 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In Traupman, both 'blockade' and 'siege' are obsidio. Cassell's has more options: 'blockade' is "obsessio, obsidio," while 'siege' is "oppugnatio (= attack), obsidio (= blockade, investment)." For the verb 'to besiege', both Cassell's and Traupman have obsidere and circumsedere, though Traupman adds that the latter is figurative; for the verb 'to blockade', Cassell's has obsĭdēre, obsīdĕre, circumvallare, but Traupman has only obsidere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 16 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'd suggest linking a page "obsidio" to siege, and (unless there is a better term still to be found) entitling this page "obsidio mercatilis" to link with blockade. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 16 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedback on this Xavier, Iacobus and Andrew!--Jondel (disputatio) 02:41, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: de nomine
Disputatio:Familia

message: Et altor 'foster father', altrix 'foster mother', alumna 'foster daughter', alumnus 'foster son', conlactea 'foster sister', conlacteus 'foster brother', nutricius 'foster father', nutrix 'foster mother'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Abamita, abavus, abavia, abavunculus, abmatertera, abnepos, abneptis, abpatruus; proamita, proavunculus, promatertera, proneptis, propatruus (omnes e Lewis & Short). Eodem fonte, verbum "adoptivus" tam parenti quam libero iungitur, "pater adoptivus" etc., "filius adoptivus" etc. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :There are more generations here on page 763. Sigur (disputatio) 13:07, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Etiam
Disputatio:Index cardinalium viventium qui papam eligere possunt

message: Cardinales rebus adversis (morbo etc.) impediti papam eligere non possunt, quamquam ius eligendi habent. Sec hoc in indice agitur de iis cardinalibus, quibus papam eligere licet.--Bavarese (disputatio) 09:00, 19 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamen non intelligo adiectivum viventium in titulo commentationis. Quod supervacaneum esse mihi videtur. Nam nusquam mortui ad scrutinia vocari possunt. Giorno2 (disputatio) 06:05, 22 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita! Ergo melius: "Index cardinalium quibus papam eligere licet"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:37, 22 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De papae electoribus
Disputatio:Proteinum 14-3-3

message: Versio prior:
* In morbo Creutzfeldt-Jakob valor in liquore cerebrospinali proteini 14-3-3 augeri solet.
Nunc: 
* In morbo Creutzfeldt-Jakob proteina 14-3-3 in liquore cerebrospinali augeri solent. 
Quae prior scripsi recte potius quam versionem currentem mihi videtur, quia in LCS proteina ipsa non "auctum" apparet, verum valorem vulgi proteinorum 14-3-3. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 15:24, 19 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proteina / valor proteini
Disputatio:Vis maior

message: Cur non vis maior? (Vide textum paginis.)---Bavarese (disputatio) 10:19, 21 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Roga auctorem ipsum! Dicit capsa editoria: "Neander movit paginam Vis maior ad Force majeure: Ut in aliis wikipediis." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:11, 21 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sed wikipaediae aliae habent paginas cum nomina vulgaria (fuerza mayor/força major/höhere Gewalt)! Et fontem veram latinam habemus in legibus Iustineaneis!--Xaverius 11:27, 21 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita: Ulpianus citatione longiori "... si in stabulo aut in caupona vis maior contigerit". (Sicut apud The Prancing Pony oppidi Bree olim accidit -- meministi, mi Xaveri?) Paginam rursus ad "Vis maior" movendam suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 21 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Cum paginam movi (19:58, die 10 Feb. 2018), vis maior sine fonte extravicipaediano erat. Semihora fere postea ipse fontem reppereram, sed segniter titulum restituere neglexi. Ignoscite, amici. Neander (disputatio) 21:00, 21 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force majeure?
Disputatio:Pagus Ater

message: Isn't Niger more of a shining black? Wouldn't Terra Atra be a more fitting translation, as 'black' is the black of soot and grime? cf Wiktionary. JimKillock (disputatio) 17:34, 22 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "atra" is more suitable. I think "nigra" wants to be taken literally, while "atra" carries more of the undertones associated with the colour black.

text: I think, too, that Tergum Violinae, long ago, should not have moved this page to the English name. The name consists entirely of translatable words, and our guidelines permit translating it. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 22 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :I would have thought that pagus is a closer equivalent to country. If I read terra nigra I think of the archaeological "dark/black earths" that form usually in post-Roman contexts.--Xaverius 19:11, 22 Augusti 2019 (UTC)

text: :(Cf. Pagus Vasconicus for Pais Vasco/Pays Basque)--Xaverius 19:12, 22 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I haven't seen anthracite in more than sixty years, but my memory is that pieces of it can be quite shiny. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:41, 22 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ha, yes anthractite *can* be shiny … but if I may say so coal dust is coal dust … Pagus does look a bit closer. Pagus Ater then? JimKillock (disputatio) 07:15, 23 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, you re-wrote and I've moved. Let's see what we can find.

text: ::::Notice that "Terra atra" in "Terra+Atra"&source=bl&ots=PAdV_GLC21&q="Terra%20Atra"&f=false#v=snippet&q="Terra%20Atra"&f=false this source is used of painters' pigments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 24 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::But then we have Eduardus, vulgo Niger princeps dictus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:59, 24 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::The dictionaries seem to say that the negative connotations apply to both ater and niger – the Black Prince Edward is called this because of his deadly methods; perhaps either could apply? The Black Country, though, is generally assumed (and has stuck) because of its reference to grime; it might orginally have referred to the presence of a  massive coal seam. It is not necessarily negative - it evokes industriousness and withstanding hardship as well as dirt - which may help explain why it is a matter of local pride to refer to the 'Black Country'. JimKillock (disputatio) 12:40, 24 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Terra Nigra
Disputatio:Guilielmus Du-Gard

message: On the title pages that I have seen his English name usually appears as "William Du-Gard". On Latin title pages the imprint is "Typis Du-Gardianis". There are slight variations, but I have not seen "Dugard" or "DuGard".
I am now finding online copies of his Rhetorices elementa, which show that the Latin name he used was "Guil. Du-Gard". This is the most accessible ; another . Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 27 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the books he printed are listed here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 27 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Great :) I agree with the title / name change. I'll see if I can put more titles onto the page later. There are some background articles that list them. I'm not sure where I saw DuGard; I did look for a Latin name but clearly not hard enough! JimKillock (disputatio) 17:01, 27 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Iter in Vasingtoniam Occupationis Libertatisque Causa

message: Jondel, you suggested changing the lemma. For 'march', why do you think grassatio is better than 'iter'? See L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 28 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks f0r examining this.   grassor at p97 Traupmann: it has both meaning of ' to advance   and rage.  By inference ,  a protest march would be an advancing in rage.--Jondel (disputatio) 23:54, 28 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: De lemmate
Disputatio:Euphrates

message: I can see what the second sentence is getting at, but I get lost in the first. Una cum Tigri confluat  Mesopotamia Syriae...: "Let one Mesopotamia of Syria flow with the tiger ..." well, OK, it's probably "let it flow with/into the Tigris" cum Tigride confluat, and maybe it's meant to be in Mesopotamia, but what is Syriae (genitive or dative) doing? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 3 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Andrew for looking into this.  The desired meaning is 'it flows  together with Tigris at Mesopotamia of Syria(let's remove).--Jondel (disputatio) 03:34, 4 Septembris 2019 (UTC)

text: I used simple wiki as a source--Jondel (disputatio) 03:36, 4 Septembris 2019 (UTC)

text: una cum -together with--Jondel (disputatio) 03:38, 4 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, that's how I'd have construed it (taking Tigri for Tigride or Tigre): "Let Syria's Mesopotamia, together with the Tigris, flow jointly." For the record: the entire text of the article on the Euphrates in Simple English is:
replies: text: ::"The Euphrates is the western of the two rivers that define the borders of Mesopotamia. The other is the Tigris, which joins the Euphrates to form the Shatt-al-Arab and flow into the Persian Gulf."

text: :If you want to be fairly literal, "to form the X and flow into the Y" may want to be a pair of gerundives or ut-clauses, but maybe getting rid of the seeming sense of purpose (which nature doesn't have) by regarding the original as more like "which, joining the Euphrates" [or: "together with the Euphrates"], forms the X and flows into the Y" would be better, but other solutions may be possible, and certainly the non-Simple version would have more detail. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:39, 4 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novus textus
Disputatio:Gordonus Bajnai

message: It doesn't lok good with the pic so I took it out. Kapeter77 (disputatio) 04:53, 9 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've substituted a different image so that there's no duplication. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:27, 9 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture
Disputatio:Sismologia

message: Latinitate puriora Sismologia? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Italici (vide titulum libellorum in pagina nostra citatorum) Italiane "sismologia" scribunt, sed in eisdem libellis (vide nexum quem addidi) Hungarus Latine scribens "seismologiam" etc. scribit! Rationem harum rerum haud scio ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Putabam litteras Graecas (Latinasque priscas!) ei saepissime esse litteram Latinam ī. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Etiam vide praefixum sīsmo- apud Leonem Latinum, LATĪNŌRUM NOVŌRUM VOCĀBULŌRUM INDEX. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:59, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Ne huius obliviscamini vocabuli a quatiendo (σείω) ducti, quod est σεῖστρον ⇒ sīstrum. Neander (disputatio) 17:38, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Licet sine fonte orthographiam normalem imponere ... sed non iam necesse est, quia verba "sismologiae et theologiae dogmaticae" in hoc textu ope Googlium repperi! Moveo ergo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:02, 10 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma: Seismologia
Disputatio:Engelbertus Kaempfer

message: Cum nomina auctoris ad libros eius posita comparo, praenomen Latinum Engelbertus legitur. Cognomen autem mihi dubium est; nam ut in omnes casus flectitur, sic casus nominativus Kaempfer videtur esse. Movendum ergo ad Engelbertus Kaempfer puto esse. Quod, nemine contradicente, faciam. --Bavarese (disputatio) 08:51, 12 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominativus nominis casus videtur Engelbertus Kaempferus. Etiam vide casum genetivum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 12 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nomen "Kaempferus" multoties in "kaempferus"&source=bl&ots=9QYfAlq6Yn&sig=ACfU3U2v6V1ujvxmKPPcSAlY2kUHimgFHQ&hl=la&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizt7_lgczkAhXKz4UKHau8A9cQ6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="kaempferus"&f=false hac pagina videtur. Etiam titulum habemus operis Kaempferus Illustratus，seu explicatio plantarum Japonicarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 12 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Tantum in titulis librorum a Kaempfero conscriptorum nomen Latine versum (sc. casu nominativo dictum) quaesivi et non repperi. Sed miror, quod apud permultos, qui de eo scripserunt, quamquam nomen eius declinant, tamen nomen non "Kaempferus", sed Kämpfer multoties legitur, immo in libro quodam ab Iacobo communicatum (in nexu, quod hodie aperire non possum). --Bavarese (disputatio) 06:54, 17 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Possumus ergo in prima sententia scribere "Engelbertus Kämpfer seu Kaempferus", notis subiunctis. Tibi, ut qui de nomine quaesiveris, licet hoc aut illud cognomen praeponere sicut tibi melius videtur, mi Bavarese. Certe praeferre licet formam, qua aut ipse aut librorum ipsius editor usus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 17 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine Kaempferi Latino
Disputatio:Officina lactaria

message: I hadn't realised, when substituting a name and moving the article, that it was only a few days old. My move may well have been hasty, therefore. If there is evidence for "lactarium" in this sense, or if that name seems preferable after all, please move back without hesitation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 30 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Augustinus Herrman

message: I did some tidying. I deleted all his redlinked descendants, leaving only the one bluelink. The bare list of them seemed useless to readers. They can be restored: in that case, I suggest using , so that readers can easily find the English articles and start translating them into Latin.
I also deleted dead external links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 22 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
*Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II is fairly famous, and how could he not be welcome here, with such a pregnant name! Most of the others? Not so much. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:19, 22 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, he is! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 22 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicifeci
Disputatio:Psychosis affectiva bipolaris

message: Editor quis in alia pagina hanc notam de titulo huius paginae subiunxit: "Eo tempore ad psychosem bipolarem nexum est, alia similia invicem perturbatio dicunt." Haec res in primam sententiam huius commentationis addi potest, fontibus adductis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 27 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Messor compositus

message: A reaper or harvester is well-attested to be a messor, but does that go for a machine or a tool that reaps or harvests? or should some compound ending in trum be made? And if so, what would it be? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:24, 28 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma