lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Calvert Watkins

message: De: "aedes 'Grays Hall' nomine (laeva), ubi Watkins officinam habuit dum professor hac in universitate erat."—Ubi est fons huius affirmationis? Certe non erant officinae professorum in Grays Hall anno academico 1963–1964. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 8 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Officinam ibi anno 1990-91 habuit, ut memini:  discupula eius fui et hac in officina eum vidi.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:35, 8 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, OK. Anno academico 1963–1964, ibi quidem habitabam. Ubi intra aedificium erat officina? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:39, 8 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In the basement;  you'd enter from the side away from the yard, facing Wigglesworth/Mass Ave.  It always struck me as an odd place for an office but maybe he was master of the dorm or faculty in residence, or whatever term is appropriate for the first-year dorms in the yard.  (I know it was "master of a house" for the upperclass residences, at least in those days.)  You would have just missed my husband who was class of 1962.  Me, I was a student in the Extension, never a degree candidate.  (Too lazy to put all this into Latin this morning.)  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:30, 10 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Aha! In the basement! I suspected as much! Quod tempore nostro erat praetorium vigilium universitariorum! The buildings in the Yard didn't have masters (now called deans), as only the houses (in attested Latin: domus) did, but most of their entries included a suite where a graduate student who advised freshmen (now called firstyears) lived. I don't recall having had an occasion to visit the basement, which, as you may have noticed, didn't connect with the rest of the building. Did you know that Grays, built in 1863, was the first local dorm to have indoor plumbing, including toilets? The outhouses used to stand just east of University Hall, hidden by pine trees, of which one or two were still standing in the 1960s. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:01, 10 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fons quorundam verborum
Disputatio:Caseus mucore glaucus

message: Mihi videtur meipsum olim hoc nomen Latinum sine fonte finxisse! Licet talem appellationem Anglicam convertere, sed quomodo? Verbum "aerugosus" alibi non reperio; insuper verbum rarum "aeruginosus" ad metalla, non ad alimenta applicatur. Quid facere? Descriptionem Latinam huius caseorum generis, nisi illam quam citamus, haud reperio. Talis caseus non omnino caeruleus est sed vena caerulea habet. Sunt qui "blue-veined" nuncupantur (vide bibliographiam); reperitur etiam caseus Blue vinny (i.e. venis caeruleis). An possumus "caseum venosum" aut "caseum venis caeruleis" appellare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 11 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Inveni apud Robert Maier: "Visuelles Wörterbuch", Monaci 2010, p. 136, ISBN 978-3-8310-9086-0 vocem hanc pro Blauschimmelkäse: caseus mucore glaucus - Giorno2 (disputatio) 16:48, 11 Maii 2021 (UTC)

text: Et "aeruginosum" servare possumus. — Si Maieri lexicon in reti adesset, plures id cognoscerent. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:14, 11 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Lexicon Maieri nunquam vidi! Gratias ago ambobus. "Caseus mucore glaucus", interdum fortasse brevius "caseus glaucus", accipi potest, mea mente. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:15, 11 Maii 2021 (UTC)

text: Hic nexus est ad librum. Ni fallor est tractatio operis orginalis olim Anglice editi. Inde Robert Maier res convertit et verisimiliter nonnulla addidit. In paginis Roberti Maioris videntur etiam aliae res optimae, e.g. Cursus linguae Latinae vivae ... - Giorno2 (disputatio) 08:00, 12 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Adam Reich

message: "1.75 m alto Adam 75 kilograms Imperium adeptus erat elit fere gravis Championships 2014 USA." Fortasse Anglice conversa: "1.75 meters to a high Adam 75 kilograms had reached the empire he perhaps els a heavy the Championships 2014 USA." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 14 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte scripsisti, O Iacobe. Suadeo equidem, ut Oliver5647 breviore in tempore emendationes suos divulget. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:31, 14 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tardius vidi; cito delevi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 14 Maii 2021 (UTC)

text: :Restitui! Dies elapsos male calculaveram. Date mihi veniam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 14 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Haec verba non sunt Latina
Disputatio:Theoria prospectuum

message: Lemma "Theoria prospectus" in "Theoria prospectuum" convertimus quia prospect theory Anglice theoriam prospectuum significat. Vocabulum prospect singulare hic videtur, sed plurale intellegitur. Similiter boneyard est 'area ossium' (bones), non 'ossis' (bone); football est 'ludus pedum' (feet), non 'pedis' (foot); tooth decay est 'tabes dentium' (teeth), non 'dentis' (tooth). Sic videtur proprietas syntactica magni momenti in lingua Anglica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 24 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Salsa camelina

message: "Salsa camelina est conditura in arte coquinaria mediaevali saepissime adhibita."—OK, but can it be defined more particularly? We see hints in the second example, which has plenty of problematic letters & abbreviations (including two forms of the letter R), but makes a few things clear: "Pro salsa camelina •~• canelam amigdam cum corio in mortario te(ri)tas et allea (f/s)il' distemperata cum ag~sta l' vino et si amigdam hr~e ut pot(er)is pone crustam panis." So you're grinding cinnamon (canela), maybe almonds (amyg[da]la?), and corium (?) in a mortar, and somehow wine comes into the picture, and then you put some breadcrust somewhere. Is the text correctly transcribed elsewhere? The recipe could be tasty! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:08, 23 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm expanding all the sauce recipesarticles. I'm collecting the sources (for sauces), adding images, and building up the texts gradually. Progress may be a bit unpredictable but patience will be rewarded :) I want to try this one too.

text: The reason for the name, by the way, is that it's camel-coloured. So they say Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:57, 23 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio
Disputatio:Super Metroid

message: Ait Donatello noster die 22 Iunii: concernentes = pres. prt. adj. "concerning" as a higher way of expression, instead of something standard like in the middle, & placed normally in the end of a sentence. In the middle works to, but would be too high in this sentence. Works completely fine. Saying "propter", "according to", has another high understanding, which works as well, but does not fit in here according to my usage of grammar. Unless I wouldn't be Cicero, who nobody can be today.
replies: text: Why use a rare & late verb—which doesn't mean 'concerning'? So in effect, Ludus electronicus acclamatus criticales recepit suam atmosphaeram, modum lusorium, musicam, graphicam concernentes gives us 'The electronic game received "critical" "acclamations," sifting its "atmosphere," manner of play, music, and graphics'.

text: For the idea of 'concerning' ('regarding', 'in/with regard to', 'in respect of', 'in connection with', and even 'as for'), Latin has at least five idioms: (1) the bare ablative; (2) de or ab + ablative; (3) ad or in + accusative; (4) attinere, pertinere, spectare + ad + accusative; and (5) attingere + accusative. Traupman implies that de + ablative is the commonest, but the bare ablative is familiar in comparative constructions: Tunica propior palliost (Plautus) = 'The shirt is nearer than the cloak' = 'The shirt is nearer in regard to the cloak'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:04, 24 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbum ''concernere''
Disputatio:Ecclesia Sacristissimi Cordis Domini Iesu Lublini

message: Estne "Ecclesia Sacristissimi Cordis Domini Iesu Lublini" nomen officiale? Si est, fontem desideramus. Utcumque est, sacristissimi forma insolita mihi quidem videtur. Si adiectivum superlativum affectatur, melius Ecclesia sacerrimi cordis dicitur. Neander (disputatio) 05:38, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, amice, sed vocabulum sacristissimus, -a, um in usu ecclestiastico videtur (Google). Nobis etiam sunt vocabula sacrosanctus et sacrosanctissimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:52, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Mihi tantummodo versio Sanctissimi cordis Iesu nota erat, quamquam et alia utique exstat - cf. hic in precibus Latinis: in titulo "sacratissimum" legitur, in precibus ipsis autem "sanctissimum". In ista pagina habemus simul et "sacristissimum" et "sacratissimum"... Suadeo motionem tituli commentationis quia versio "sanctissimi" magis nota esse videtur (machina indagatrice consultata), etiam si agitur de "corde sanctissimo Mariae". Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:45, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacristissimi?
Disputatio:Franciscus Xaverius Lezama Perier

message: The only evidence offered for the existence & fame of this person is a link to "Opera ab hoc homine vel de eo scripta apud Bibliothecam Nationalem Germanicam"—but that merely points us in the direction of the library; it doesn't take the trouble of linking to any actual works. So deletion might well be an appropriate solution. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:56, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The dataset does have a link (under "1 Publikation") to the dataset for the publication.  But that then appears to be a PDF online resource, and the further link goes to www.goodreads.com which appears to be the editor ("Verlag").  Indeed rather doubtful. Sigur (disputatio) 06:43, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nexum adidi, forsitan consilio auxilium ... Andreas Raether (disputatio) 07:21, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

text: :Utilisne? = https://amp.es.autograndad.com/8410848/1/patxi-xabier-lezama-perier.html#article ? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 07:29, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

text: :Vicipaedia Hispanica paginam delevit: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patxi_Xabier_Lezama_Perier Andreas Raether (disputatio) 07:32, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Et dicit quod ipse est fons unus de representative artists in Vasca SCENA. Creator, qui est ex parte generationis Vasca fictorumque conjungere.  Et quod includitur in opere De Conserved Heritage In Museum of History Fund hereditatem de Las Encartaciones, ut fama ostendit, aliisque fontibus iuris.

text: Opus illud singulum, nisi lectorem nostrum ad recensiones ab aliis scriptas dirigimus, notabile esse non monstravimus. Artifex, nisi plura opera ab aliis recensa confecerit, notabilem esse non monstratur. Ergo paginam deleo. Si quis restituere vult notabilitatemque artificis operumque per fontes fidei dignos monstrare potest, certe licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Inept citation
Disputatio:Lee Kuan Yew

message: Utens 1.9.176.241, editor ignote, haec verba sine explicatione heri erasisti:
replies: text: Per tria decennia, cum Lee munus sustineret, Singapura ex civitate provectibili ad civitatem maxime in Asia Meridiorientali evolutam crevit, etiamsi paucos incolas, parvam terram, inopia copiarum naturae habet.
Yet in the English wikipedia you didn't delete the passage that the Latin words are echoing:

text: During the three decades in which Lee held office, Singapore grew from a developing country to one of the most developed nations in Asia. Lee said that Singapore's only natural resources are its people and their strong work ethic.
Accordingly, I've restored the Latin, making changes to bring it more closely in line with the English text and adding footnotes that support the statements that you removed. If you object to this restoration, please tell us why! The text in the English wiki isn't entirely settled, and it's currently "in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" (it says), so meritorius changes are of course welcome here. ¶ FYI: This article is one of the 10,000 most important pages; your deletions reduced its wordcount and accordingly lowered Vicipaedia's scores at Meta.  IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Verba erasa
Disputatio:Lingua Homerica

message: "Lingua Homerica" vel "Lingua Graeca Homerica" (aut "Lingua Graeca epica")? Si bene memoro, non solus Homerus in sermone epico composuit. Nullum habemus fontem?--Xaverius 08:08, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Grammatica Homerica ? ̴̴vel sermo Homericus ? --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 09:40, 29 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
"Sermo Homericus" sane Latinitatis elegantioris... sed in talibus casibus nostra Vicipaedia lingua non sermone utiturː Lingua Latina non sermo Latinus, Lingua Graeca non sermo Graecus, Lingua Anglica non sermo Anglicus...
--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 15:07, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Si "sermo vulgaris Latinus" scribi potest, cur non "sermo Homericus"? Move si vis, Marce.

text: Si "sermo" contra "linguam" aliis locis dici debetur incertus sum. Quibus rationibus mutationem proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
Xaverio respondebam. Equidem movere non cupio. Sermo usui antiquo aptior, lingua usui moderno. Linguistica scientia moderna est. Ut supra indicavi  fontem ad "Sermo Homericus" habemus, ad "Lingua Homerica" nondum inveni. An necessarius sit fontem locutioni reperire alii viderint.
--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 15:40, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)

text: Verba lingua Homerica leguntur hic (1612) et hic (1813) et hic (1875). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:06, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :[Ante Iacobum scribere coepi!] Fonte "sermonis" citato, nullo fonte "linguae" usque adhuc reperto, paginam movendam propono.

text: :Re vera non nobis licet linguam specialem Vicipaedicam creare: stylum classicum praeferimus, sed fontes (etiamsi recentiores) nominum quaerere et citare oportet. Quando nomina Latina linguarum recentiorum quaesivi (abhinc fere 10 annis!) "linguas" plures, "sermones" paucos repperi. Sicut dicis, "sermo usui antiquo aptior, lingua usui moderno". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)

text: Dialectus Homerica satis usitata est, et dialectus epica; nam, si de linguistica moderna colloquimur, lingua epica non est lingua separata. Sed nihil cogo, solum hanc possibilitatem memoro. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:15, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Maria Wollstonecraft

message: Meta isn't giving Vicipaedia any credit for this article, saying "Wrong language, la:Maria Wollstonecraft has too much untranslated English." But the untranslated English mostly happens to be the titles of her works. So apparently, the article would qualify for inclusion in the 10,000 list, and Vicipaedia would gain 2 points, if only we blanked out the titles of her books or put Latin glosses in their place! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:57, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Just now, I've tried the expedient of hiding English titles inside links; next month, we may learn whether that workaround was successful. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:40, 19 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

text: Also (while we're at it), Meta says Vicipaedia has no article for "Egg," but it does: "Ovum." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:06, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Also "Insular Oceania," but that's the same as "Oceania." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:14, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Also, Vicipaedia's "Malum Sinense" isn't being recognized as referring to "Orange" (the fruit). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:18, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Probably other such discrepancies can be found. Who will fix them? To see Meta's list of egregiously missing articles go here. The significance of the order by which the titles are numbered is a mystery. (Copied to Taberna.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:18, 18 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much English?
Disputatio:Refractio

message: feci quod potui, quis potest amplifica Tchougreeff (disputatio) 18:53, 21 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rem vicificabamus, sed textus imperfectus manet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:30, 21 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: : Lemma dedi, figuram oneravi. Quoad Latinitatem, dubio aliquis aliquando patro Caraffa melius (de physica) scripturus sit.Tchougreeff (disputatio) 06:45, 22 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Initium
Disputatio:Kraiburg ad Aenum

message: Care 88.133.95.76, utens ignote, modus vicipaedianus formula "upright," non formula "pxXpx," utitur. Exempli gratia, "250px" = "upright=1." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 28 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Upright
Disputatio Categoriae:Particulae elementares

message: Melius Particulae elementariae—nomen (1) plurale et (2) declensionis secundae? De #1: plurimae categoriae sunt plurales, et quidem multas particulas tales habemus. De #2: vide L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:54, 2 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine categoriae
Disputatio:Aquatica

message: Nonne pagina ad hoc Vicidatum alligata de palude ut de genere biotoporum debet esse? Nescio, quod Iosephus Mir de aquaticis et paludibus putaret, sed mihi sententia de paludibus semper arboribus opertis (i.e. silvis variis umidis vel partim demersis, hoc Vicidatum) valde mirabilis est. Num per Paludem Maeoticam arbores crescunt? Etsi "palus" vocabulum interdum Latine et locum uliginosum silvestrem significat, non solum eum. 
(Si haec pagina ad "palus" movebitur, quae nunc discretiva est, ea potius "palus (discretiva)" nominabitur). — Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:15, 2 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed "Marsh" cum "Swamp" non confundendum est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:58, 2 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Swamp" mea mente est "silva paludosa" vel "palus silvestris". Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:16, 2 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonne "palus"?
Disputatio:Plutarchia (vespa)

message: Marce, hic mutasti appellatur in nominatur. Noster Neander iampridem nos monuit exemplar ex [nomine] appellatur scribere, et quidem apud Ciceronem legimus "appellata est ex viro virtus." Nihilominus, non dubitamus quin verbum nominandi non falsum sit. Utrum autem vocabulum est melius? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:27, 24 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Appellare aut nominare?
Disputatio:Myrmecina

message: Ecce:
replies: text: America septentrionalis = northern America (Texia, Florida, ceterisque civitatibus meridianis fortasse exceptis)

text: America Septentrionalis = North America (Texia, Florida, ceterisque civitatibus meridianis non exceptis)
Typographia noster amicus, polysemia numquam. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:07, 20 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Res distinctaa
Disputatio:Preseucoela

message: Verba huius commentarii partim ex Preseucoela imallshookupis derivantur, partim de novo ex Buffington 2004 et Valenzuela Escoboza et al. 2019 scribuntur. Commentarius quidem de genere in Wikipedia solum est "redirect" ad commentarium de specie. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:38, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributio
Disputatio:Preseucoela heratyi

message: Verba huius commentarii partim ex Preseucoela imallshookupis derivantur, partim de novo ex Buffington 2004 et Valenzuela Escoboza et al. 2019 scribuntur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributio
Disputatio:Wimbledonia

message: There are many references (in English) to Wimbledonia, and one Latin reference to Wimbledoniae (a genitive). is that good enough to change? I am inclined to accept / use that as sufficient; Wimbledoniae does strongly suggest Wimbledonia; if the nominative was thought to be Wimbledon for instance you'd expect Wimbledonis it seems to me. --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:18, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any medieval attestations? It's an ancient site! Generally, if memory serves, the old vernacular placenames ending in ton and dun would have been Latinized as tonia and dunia (or tonum and dunum?) respectively. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:50, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :A quick look shows various English variations on Wymbaldon / Wimbledon; including in Latin records it seems, but nothing that is obviously Latinised. --JimKillock (disputatio) 22:16, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Wimbledonia -ae from very respectable 19th century Latin is fine, surely. Good find. Far preferable to "Wimbledo -onis" from 21st century Ephemeris (see footnote), which is not what you'd usually expect when English names in -ton or -don are Latinized. Hadn't seen this discussion before. I'll move it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 31 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Radians (unitas)

message: Nomen huius unitatis, quod radian, radianis dabatur, mihi bonae Latinitati repugnare videbatur; quam ob rem conversum est a me radians, radiantis tamquam participium verbi radiare, quoniam Italice et radiante dicitur. Etiamsi vix inveniri potest in operibus Latinis, minus est puto odiosum quam alterum. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 04:09, 27 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Camerwella

message: I think we have mentions of "Camerwella" in medieval Latin records, in the ablative mostly, ie Camerwellá eg [here]. That seems reasonable to assume a nom "Camerwella" tho? --JimKillock (disputatio) 10:33, 28 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 28 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Conventio de Actione contra Mercatum Hominum

message: Nunc "Conventio de Actione contra Mercatum Hominum." Anglice: Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings. Francice: Convention du Conseil de l'Europe sur la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains. Ergo nostra lingua fortasse melius "Conventus Concilii Europaei de Actione contra Homines Commercandos"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:09, 30 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Austinopolis

message: Dear 79.116.73.241, you wrote in the editbox "Fixed grammar." But you didn't. The text used to say that Traupman's Conversational Latin attested Austinopolis, but in footnote 1, you changed it to say that Traupman attests Augustinopolis. In footnote 2, you changed the text to say that this site attests the adjective Augustiniensis, but it doesn't: it attests the adjective Austiniensis. The text has accordingly been reverted. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:39, 3 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fixed grammar"
Disputatio:Bishop Amat Memorial High School

message: Quomodo lyceum appellari potest haec schola? Vide definitionem vocabuli lycei in Merriam-Webster: "1: a hall for public lectures or discussions. 2: an association providing public lectures, concerts, and entertainments." Secundum hanc definitionem, lyceum in California (vel alicubi in Civitatibus Foederatis!) non est schola. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 09:45, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyceum?!