lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Ars Romana (medium aevum)

thread_title:  Disputatio ex pagina [[Ars Romanica]] translata 

message: Eadem locutio in fontibus mediaevalibus de aedificiis et ornamentis adhibetur: "opus romanum", neque "architectura romana" neque "ars romana": vocibus enim Latinis, si recte intellexi, ars et architectura indivisibiles sunt. Ergo, si separatim de aedificiis et ornamentis loqui volumus (sicut lectores fortasse postulant) quid facere? An Opus romanum (architectura) et Opus romanum (ars)? Nescio ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 17 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Valde censeo hanc paginam movendam esse, et mihi placet dvissionem quam propones, sed 'meo cum petaso archaeologi', opus romanum mihi proximum ad opus caementicium, opus africanum &c videtur, ita malo opus romanum pro architectura.--Xaverius 09:48, 17 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ut mihi quidem videtur, „ars Romana“ et „ars Romanica“ distinguendae sunt non solum re sed etiam verbo (sicut et habemus duas categorias diversas). Licet vox „ars Romanica“ nova sit, tamen his diebus in usu est (vide exempli gratia situm Ars Romanica vel librum Formositas Romanica). Mihi legenti „Ars Romana“ nihil aliud esse videtur quam ars Romanorum antiquarum. Quam ob rem etiam vox "opus Romanum", quamvis sit in litteris mediaevalibus, mihi parum clara videtur. Scribimus saeculo XXI pro lectoribus hodiernis.--Utilo (disputatio) 07:41, 23 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Delevi suasionem movendi (Suademus haec pagina ad "Ars romana" moveatur), quod commentarius Ars Romana de arte Romanorum antiquorum disserit.--Utilo (disputatio) 07:31, 2 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Opus romanum"
Disputatio:Fridericus Simoons

message: Hello:
I was just informed that Frederick J. Simoons passed away.
2A02:A03F:8A9B:7F00:9DE4:EB90:FBD0:A4B7 11:07, 20 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. A reminder to update the article where possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 22 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased 2022
Disputatio:Ars Romana (antiquitas)

message: That the history of the text might be preserved, the article "Ars Romana" should have been MOVED to "Ars Romana (antiquitas)," rather than obliterated, no? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 20 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. I noticed two others but didn't notice this one. If no one else does it first, I'll re-work the move later today when I have more time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 23 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sorry for the confusion I've caused in some places. I just made the change - hopefully right!--Utilo (disputatio) 09:06, 23 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That looks fine. This way, the origin of the page is properly recorded -- created by Utilo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 23 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Uwe Seeler

message: Nonne  Gregis Nationalis GermanicAE pedilusor? Mathiaroselius (disputatio) 20:25, 25 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve Mathiaroselie, recte scribis! Errorem correxi. 21:14, 25 Augusti 2022 (UTC) Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:14, 25 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregis Nationalis Germanicis pedilusor
Disputatio:Vestimenta

message: Emendare non possum, sed vinculum "corrigiorum" ad quoddam oppidum Italia ducit. Aliud vinculum addere debemus. Bracchipretius (disputatio) 21:15, 31 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Discretivam feci; gratias agimus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:36, 31 Augusti 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigia
Disputatio:Theodomirus

message: Not repulsisse, sed repulisse. José Antonio Bellido Díaz (disputatio) 14:35, 1 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrigas fidenter! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:45, 1 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  repulsisse
Disputatio:Dies Libertatis (Civitates Foederatae Americae)

message: I made this article and it sucks. According to IacobusAmor the words are Latin but not the grammar - so, what can be done to fix it? Also, where can a source be found to properly name "independence day" in Latin? It is hard to find anything. I'd appreciate any help. P0tato112 (disputatio) 04:19, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide "Declaratio Libertatis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:34, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad article - improvements? 

message: I have renamed and moved this article, and also tried to improve on the grammar in the part that was "dubious". The new name is in Classical Latin now. However, it no doubt is still imperfect, and I would appreciate any help with improvements again. 
If the quality really has improved, perhaps it can be linked to the Declaratio Libertatis Civitatum Americae Foederatarum page to have a link to another page.
P0tato112 (disputatio) 05:17, 6 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved article
Disputatio:Pensacola (Florida)

message: Hanc paginam creavi, sed licet annectere Vicidatae a magistratu. Non possum egomet. Gratias vobis! P0tato112 (disputatio) 04:47, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Potes! Scribe "Pensacola (Florida)" in alio commentario! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:35, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Permissione non habeo annectere Vicidatae...  P0tato112 (disputatio) 18:51, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh. I was thinking you meant in other articles. (Data is n.pl., not f.sing., Anglice 'givens'.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:41, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, sorry for the confusion, I also accidentally used licet as "it is necessary" when it actually means "it is allowed" (I got mixed up with "debet"). Also thanks for correcting datum, I originally wrote "datus" which ended up being wrong as well P0tato112 (disputatio) 20:00, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licet annectere Vicidatae (vel paginae anglicae)
Disputatio:Utica (Novum Eboracum)

message: Iterum non possum egomet, quia pagina Vicidatae protecta est, sed magistratus facere potest. Gratias vobis! P0tato112 (disputatio) 19:54, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debet annecti Vicidatae
Disputatio:Petrus Fermatius

message: The title of this page should be change to Petrus Fermatius.
Indeed, in De numeris primis valde magnis, Euler writes acutissimus Fermatius ("the very wise Fermat"). 2A02:8440:3340:B26C:D816:86F1:DAD1:215F 10:23, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sic, gratias agimus; et Eulerus non solus sic nominat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 11:51, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrus Fermatius
Disputatio:Cur Deus homo

message: Erravi cum titulus paginae scripsi sed eum mutare non possum. Victor Lutetianus (disputatio) 14:32, 10 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor novus, post quattuor dies hanc potestatem habebis -- sed statim movebo. NB: pagina "augenda" est: necesse erit textum addere (ad minimum 200 litteras) fontemque extra situm Vicimediorum citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 10 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago, si tempus habebo in diebus proximis, fontes et argumenta libri addam. Victor Lutetianus (disputatio) 19:53, 10 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cur Deus homo" (et non "Cur deus homo") titulus est
Disputatio:Astana

message: Iterum Astana, videas nuntios. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:37, 17 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmationem nominis in bibliographia addidi. Titulum "Astana" suadeo et ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 19 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Urbs iam nomen prius habet, ipse movere nequeo, cum Astana redirectio historiam editionim habeat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:59, 22 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Magistratus es, mi Dimitri, ergo redirectionem delere potuisti. Historia, quae nihil nisi historiam redirectionum continuit, minime nobis interest: ego igitur delevi et paginam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 23 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iterum
Disputatio:Abbatia in Deneia

message: Is there any historical justification for this name of what is now known as 'Denny' or is this just a made-up latinisation of the modern name? 2A00:23C5:EE16:1E01:E092:6AE2:ECE0:1222 16:57, 23 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Many sources available. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:12, 23 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Twelve years ago, when I wrote this page, we didn't do so much footnoting. I think my source was theLiber Eliensis, which I cited, but without saying that it's the source for the name.

text: :Keep on checking our names. Our rule is not to make things up (always, in all Wikipedias), and nowadays we normally cite a source to justify a Latin pagename. If you think the rule has been broken, and you can't confirm the name (e.g. via Google Books, as Demetrius did), do comment again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 24 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word 'Deneia'
Disputatio:İrfan Değirmenci

message: Commentatio non Latine scripta non ad tempus emendata est. Tamen eius creator Masitalia1861 formulam Non Latine, quem administrator posuerat, removit. Rem delendam esse censeo. Constat Vicipaediam Latinam symbolis non Latinis non egere! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 03:02, 28 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte delevisti. Nomen paginae protexi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 30 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amotio formulae emendatione deficiente
Disputatio:Gualterius Looser

message: Optime quod creata est commentatio de Gualterio Looser. TAMEN (tamquam quaestio generalis): Cur non inde ab initio minima ad Vicipaedianam commentationem necessaria implentur a primis auctoribus? Namque tempus a sequentibus personis melius et utilius adhiberi potuisset ad novam rem creandam, non ad imperfectam corripiendam... - Giorno2 (disputatio) 03:04, 6 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. Usor (nomine ) per duodecim annos nihil contributus est: ergo de nostra politia recentiore pauca fortasse observavit. NB: anno 2010, et usque in 2016, alii editores tales paginas, textu fere absente, divulgare solebant. Si talem paginam videmus, possumus aut textum augere aut formulam "" imponere, sicut hic fecisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 6 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: De labore postico defatiganti
Disputatio:Grammatica Latina

message: I believe this sentence in the "Nomina" section doesn't mean anything. Maybe it could mean something like "The wife is opposed through a man." or "The wife is opposed because of a man." but it sounds quite odd. We could change it to "Uxor pugnatur ab homine." Luca Italy (disputatio) 17:32, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Proverbs often lack a copula, so the grammar of Uxor pugnator hominis might be expected, though the result is hardly edifying. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:51, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh wait. It's not a proverb, but an attempt at an illustration. Ask the author? The history of the page suggests that the most pertinent contributor was one P.LiciniusCapito, who added that part of the text on 23 August 2020. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:59, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, it was meant to explain the ablative case. The full example is--

text: ::Ablativus: Uxor cum homine pugnat. Uxor pugnatur homine.

text: ::It could become "Uxor pugnatur ab homine." but it would still be an odd turn of phrase. Maybe a better example is needed. Luca Italy (disputatio) 20:29, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uxor pugnatur homine.
Disputatio:LAN

message: I would say, it looks much better now :-)
Dicam, id nunc multo melius videtur. Luca Italy (disputatio) 15:57, 17 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The old definition was stale, having been based on a model dating from 2012, so I went to the English wiki and started afresh. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:04, 17 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was a bit bold with that "per radium", but it seems it survived... Luca Italy (disputatio) 17:56, 17 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much better / Multo melius
Disputatio:Jennifer

message: The English WP has "Guanhumara, Guennuuar, Wenneuereia" as the Latin forms so it is not obvious which to choose.--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 18:28, 18 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's necessary to choose one, and create the page, if this redirect is to remain. Otherwise it will eventually be deleted. En:wiki isn't a reliable source; a reliable source would be a printed or peer-reviewed publication that equates "Jennifer" with a Latin forename. Having solved that, if there's a choice, we'd probably choose the one that fits most easily into Latin.

text: From your quote, it looks as though en:wiki is struggling to tell us that "Jennifer" and "Guinevere" are historically the same. If that's true (I simply don't know) we could work with the Latin form of Guinevere in a Latin version of the Arthur story. Perhaps this legwork has already been done: I have to go and build a wall, as Hadrian said, and can't check right now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Rhank you for the advice; the redirect got created because somewhere Jennifer had been linked to Genovefa (Genevieve) which must be wrong. Jennifer is thought to be a Cornish version of Guinevere King Arthur's queen and it has in Cornish the form Jenefer. Reliable sources could easily be found for this but there are not reliable sources for the four versions here. "Jennifera" seems to be the English Jennifer to which "a" has been added. Perhaps Jennifera is not a big problem after all.--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 10:57, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, the wall is holding up ... Yes, I see, Jenifer is the Cornish form of Welsh/Old French Guinevere, there's a strong consensus there. So our Latin can legitimately be the same as the Latin for Guinevere: and altnough we don't cite a source for our easily-pronounced spelling Guenevera, I can find a Latin source for it: see the footnote on this page. What better source could there be than a Bodleian manuscript (if we can't find it at Cambridge)? Thanks for correcting the redirect to Genovefa, which was clearly wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::All this trouble because of a fictional radio programme. Thanks once more. Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 12:12, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem
Disputatio:Annula Ernaux

message: An universitates frequentavit? Fontes fideles non reperio. Universitas Rothomagensis non ante annum 1996[1966] creata est. De his rebus laudes Nobelianae nihil dicunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apud situm Annulae Ernaux proprium haec dicuntur: "... avant qu’elle ne décide d’étudier les Lettres à l’Université de Rouen, abandonnant la formation entamée pour devenir institutrice" ... in contextu annorum 1960/1964, id quod impossibile esse videtur. Probabile est, mea mente, haec studia apud Institut de lettres seu Collège littéraire Rothomagensia (anno 1958 instituta) perfecta esse. De studia apud universitatem Burdigalensem nihil extra Vicipaedias lego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 20 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
"Professor" hoc sensu Francogallico est qui in scholis secundariis docere potest (id quod certe multos annos fecit), non in universitatibus. Ubi hunc titulum meruit haud scio, sed fortasse Cergei, ubi, si recte intellegi, etiamnunc habitat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haud facile ...
Disputatio:Romulus and Remus

message: Quid de barbara coniunctione "and" ? Nonne Latine "et" dicitur ? Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 13:59, 15 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

message: Non est Latine scripta commentatio haec! Verisimiliter aliquis machina translatoria usus est et en rem longissimam sed sine magno valore! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 12:09, 16 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
Assentior. Delendum?  --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:20, 20 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Utique!!! Giorno2 (disputatio) 20:50, 31 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Latine
Disputatio:Universitas Aurorae

message: Res omnino ridicula! Aliquis commentationem unius lineae (= duodecim verborum) creat - et nos rem conservare volumus et tantummodo humiliter petimus ut intra tres menses augeatur!! Talia verisimiliter in nulla alia Vicipaedia fieri possunt! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 05:52, 17 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi oportet regulas meliores in Taberna proponere,  si consensus evenit, consuetudinem cito mutare possumus.

text: Verbis tuis nuper scriptis, Demetrius paginam variis modis auxit, sed textus nimis brevis manet. Ergo, sub regulis iam vigentibus, formulam "Augenda" rursus imposui. An recte? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:37, 17 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ita sit. Nimio furore (sancto?) captus eram ... - Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:48, 17 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Res ridicula
Disputatio:Camtschatca

message: Litterae Camtschatca ex exemplari Theodisco aperte deducuntur. Cicero will have to try to pronounce it [kamt sχat ka]. If we were favoring French norms instead of German ones, it'd be Kamtchatka. If we were favoring English norms, it'd be Kamschatka or Kamchatka or Camchatca or even, and most preferably for Latin tongues, Camsatca, ut hic dicitur (and wouldn't Cicero be happier now?). Which modern language does our current rule for transliteration favor? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:03, 20 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The lily Fritillaria camschatcensis attests Camschatca, not Camtschatca. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 20 Novembris 2022 (UTC)

text: Si Cicero Linnaeum et Pallasium legeret... Which modern language does our current rule for transliteration favor? — Sic, in universitatus Russicis saeculo XVIII permulti Germani erant, Latine docebant, Russi autem putabant, ut Latina et Theodisca paene eadem lingua esset. — Non omnes fontes cum -tsch- monstruoso in pagina nunc citantur. Etiam -schtsch- invenire possumus. — Fritillaria hic et hic et hic camTschatcensis. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:52, 20 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Si Cicero (specimine eius DNA reperto) ad vitam revocatur ut encyclopaediam geographicam scribat, sine dubio illam encyclopaediam inter fontes fidei dignos recipiemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 21 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  De litteris lemmatis scribendis
Disputatio:Bartholomaeus Boscovichius

message: Care editor anonyme, si Boscovicios catholicos et Iesuitas Ragusinos ad Serbos adnumerandos esse putas, dissentire nolo, sed categoriae mutatae creandae sunt, ne rubrae sint. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:50, 24 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ragusii in pulchrissima Dalmatiae urbe natus est; ergo Croaticus fuisse, non Serbicus videtur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 24 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  De categoriis
Disputatio MediaWiki:Gadget-Direct-link-to-Commons.js

message: Please copy this upstream change, https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Snippets%2FDirect_imagelinks_to_Commons&type=revision&diff=5451422&oldid=3976429
For more information, see mw:Parsoid/Parser_Unification/Media_structure/FAQ
Thanks, Arlolra (disputatio) 00:03, 25 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done in Special:Diff/3753738 ABreault (WMF) (disputatio) 20:54, 7 Martii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepare for T314318
Disputatio:Hyginus

message: Usque adhuc nulla pagina Vicipaediae nostrae hominem, cui praenomen "Hyginus" fuerit, describit. Ergo pagina discretiva de praenomine haud nobis iam necesse est. (Paginam discretivam simplicem de auctoribus Latinis, qui "Hyginus" appellantur, possumus restituere.)
Paginas substantivas de praenominibus non accepimus, fontibus fidei dignis carentibus. Non necesse est speculum interretiale sitús Behind the Name Latine praebere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 27 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor non respondit: ergo paginam simplicem restitui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:03, 3 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda?
Disputatio:Otho (praenomen)

message: Incertus sum. "Otto" Germanicus ab "Othone" Latino differt, sed inter homines recentiores an exstant "Othones" qui re vera non sunt "Ottones"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 30 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  An retinenda?
Disputatio:Cotys I

message: This inscription the photo of which is used as an illustration to this article is highly unlikely about the king Kotis I. It is probably about the king Kotis II, son of Rhescuporis I, or more likely about Kotis III, son of Rhoemetalces I. It was published by G. Mikhailov in Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, Vol. V. https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/170362?hs=158-165 and it is dated to the I century CE. Also cf. M. Slavova. Lines 26-32 of the Horothesia of Dionysopolis (IGBulg V 5011). – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 20, 1998, 99–106. https://www.academia.edu/6714127/Lines_26_32_of_the_Horothesia_of_Dionysopolis_IGBulg_V_5011_Zeitschrift_für_Papyrologie_und_Epigraphik_20_1998_99_106 46.39.56.143 08:01, 11 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you are right. The photo came here from WikiCommons, where all images of this stele are in the "Stele of Cotys I" category. Here it is easy to remove from the article, but we still need to somehow deal with the category there. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:28, 11 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inscription with Κοτυος name
Disputatio:Tamal

message: "Tamalia in Mesoamerica inter annos 8000 et 5000 a.C.n. exorta sunt." This sounds like a guess based on the date range when maize was domesticated. What's the evidence for tamales that far back? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 17 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origo 

message: Having inserted the following and then translated it, I don't think it meets the definition of tamales. Any other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 17 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Saeculo XIX ineunte Americani inter facientes tamalia in urbe S. Antonii Texiae venundata, a pauperibus empta, observaverunt:

text: Quando carnem in nundinis emere debent, perpaucam familiae omni sufficere cogitur; quae in minutal, ut qui diceret, conciditur, capsicorum fere tanto addito, quanto frustarum carnis: hoc omne concoquitur ... Massa [maizii] parata, parva pars manibus demitur tunditurque dum tenuis fit: pastilla crate assantur. Si etiam calida e butyro sive iusculo comeduntur, sapidissima sunt, sed cito durescunt. Apud indigenas loco cochlearium adhibentur quibus omnes in eandem ollam, carnibus capsicisque repletam mergunt. Buccellas duas una cochleare supplet, quo statim hausto, altera demitur. When they have to pay for their meat in market a very little is made to suffice a family. It is generally cut into a kind of hash with nearly as many peppers as there are pieces of meat: this is all stewed together ... When the [corn] dough is al[l] ready a small portion at a time is taken and patted in the hands till thin ... these cakes are baked on sheet iron and when eaten hot with butter or gravy are very palatable, but soon get tough. They answer the natives for spoons with which they all dip into the same dish of meat and peppers prepared as above, one spoon not lasting longer than to supply with two mouthfuls when a new one is made use of. J. C. Clopper, ephemeris ("J. C. Clopper's Journal and Book of Memoranda for 1828" in Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association vol. 13 [1909] pp. 44-80) p. 74
thread_title:  Tamal or not tamal?
Disputatio:Lucomoria

message: Luka portum in Croatian ,pestilentiae epidemia 176.65.96.17 11:32, 23 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Luca" est "curvatura, sinus" (cf. "luk, izlučina") fluminis vel maris, et "more" est "mare". "Lucomor'e" est regio ad sinum marinum sita. Etymologia lucida et vulgata est, aliis non indigens. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:41, 23 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymologia