lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Linguistica diachrona

message: Sustulit Usor:UV plures nexus intervici, quos paginae addideram, quoniam pro parte tantum congruunt:</br>
*:br:Kevadegezh ha treadegezh</br>
*:cs:Diachronní a synchronní</br>
*:es:Sincronía y diacronía</br>
*:et:Diakroonia ja sünkroonia</br>
*:fr:Synchronie et diachronie</br>
*:nl:Synchronisch versus diachronisch</br>
*:gl:Sincronía e diacronía</br>
Dissentio. Vicidatis exacte congruenda quippe sunt elementa, atque nonnunquam licet addere locales nexus, si idonei sunt (quamquam ibi ampliores). Praecipue sunt diachronia et synchronia binae notiones, quae altera per alteram constituentur: quare in aliis Vicipaediis una pagina scripta est, in aliis duae sunt. Puto omnes nexus illos lectori utiles. Aucassin (disputatio) 13:25, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi hac in re assentior, Aucassin. Etiam nobis opus est commentatione de synchronia et diachronia disserenti. Iam in eo sum, ut mox huius adumbrationem ad Vicipaediam nostram addam. In qua commentatiuncula nexùs ad linguisticam synchronam et linguisticam diachronam faciam. Neander (disputatio) 14:24, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Problema optime solutum. Aucassin (disputatio) 12:34, 14 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incerti nexus intervici
Disputatio:Pollens exosceletus

message: An "Exosceletus automatus"? Incertus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 19 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exosceletus autem ab homine regitur; non omnino automatus est. Fortasse "exosceletus mechanicus"? Vel "exosceletus motore actus"? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:46, 20 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Index locutionum Graecarum

message: Pagina perutilis erit (si augetur), sed tam locutiones varias quam proverbia continet. Igitur movendam suadeo ad "Index locutionum Graecarum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 19 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Certe rem augebo recto quidem tempore. Ceterum adsentior de nomine paginae. Autokrator (disputatio) 19:45, 19 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago, Autokrator. Movebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:@

message: "Symbolum hac linguá "at" ut Anglice, illá linguá nomine alio appellatur." The way the preceding context reads currently, "hac lingua" must mean Latin and "illa lingua" must mean English. But that doesn't seem to be right; the name in English is "[commercial] at", and whatever we're asserting that the name in Latin is, I think we'd need to supply a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 19 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. If I recall correctly, I was trying to use the "this one... that one" idiom, as in: "In this language the symbol is called 'at' as in English, in that language, another name." I'd appreciate a better translation. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 03:45, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :I see now. I never thought of that: I was assuming the other idiom, in which, after you have named two parallel things (such as languages), haec will mean "the latter" and "illa" will mean "the former". I'll try to change it so that it isn't ambiguous. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:13, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I didn't get this
Disputatio:Carolus Beauclerk

message: ... this footnote, <ref>{{Harvnb|Cokayne|1945|pp=260–1}}; {{Harvnb|Chambers|1912|p=xxxvi}}</ref>. For this kind of reference to work, the books themselves have to be cited in the correct format in the bibliography of the article. They currently aren't, so the links in the footnote don't work and the reader doesn't know what is being cited.
It is a bad idea to link to common words and numbers, and nearly always a bad idea to link to disambiguation pages. The best Latin word for "shield/coat of arms" is "insigne". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:50, 19 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took out ...
Disputatio:Sclerder

message: We need a source for the name "Sclerdermonasterium", which doesn't look likely to be correct. German makes compounds like this -- Latin hardly ever does. There probably is a Latin name: we need to confirm it and cite the source. If there is no source, the page will have to be moved.
The link to "British History" doesn't work (click it and see). It may be simply that an extra | has been added at the end of it, but, removing this, we just get to the British History main page. That's not what we need. We want a link to the page that has the information about this abbey. Go to that page, copy the whole of the address as shown in your browser (CTRL + C) and paste it into the footnote (CTRL + V).
The links have been completed by repeating the web address, like this: <ref>www.british-history.ac.uk</ref>. This is just a waste of everybody's time -- please don't do it this way any more. Please complete the links not by repeating the address, but (a) by pasting in a title, in the original language, from that web page, or (b) by saying in Latin  what information  the link has to offer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 21 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries
Disputatio Formulae:Balzac Comoedia humana

message: Volui hanc enumerationem utiliorem facere (si potui) quam quod apud alias Vicipaedias reperitur, sed et simplicem. Sub ordine auctoris annum indicavi quo quisque opus in formá libri vel partis libri primum editum sit, et in omnibus subdivisionibus ordinem chronologicum secutus sum. Titulos varios et annos qui ad divulgationem priorem in periodicis tantum relevant omnino omisi: tales res, sicut et annos editionum posteriorum, possumus in paginis de operibus singulis addere.
I wanted to make this list more useful than what is found on other Wikipedias, but also not too complicated. In the first part (Balzac's own classification) I indicated the year of first book publication of each work. Under each of Balzac's subdivisions I put the titles in chronological order using these same dates. I did not insert alternative titles and dates that relate to previous publication in newspaper supplements and magazines: I thought that we can include this information, and also information about later revised editions, in the articles about individual works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 22 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordo &c
Disputatio:Index gubernatorum Massachusettae

message: Quod tabula gubernatorum iam habemus, in pagina cuius titulus est Gubernator Massachusettae, censeo hanc paginam inutilem.  Propono eam delere.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:30, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina delenda
Disputatio:Martina Aubry

message: Morem nescio apud nos usitatum. Sed femina compluriens non magistra, sed magister nominari alienum mihiquidem videtur esse. Bavarese (disputatio) 19:02, 30 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Scripsi ut videtur "minister" sed et "magistra", qua ratione haud scio. Te rescribere suadeo, o amice, sicut melius sonat! ac si alii aliter iudicant, ut interveniant.

text: Nonne imaginem pulchram repperi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 30 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Certe bellissimam! Capite aperto (velim dicere chapeau!) te bene valere iubet Bavarese (disputatio) 19:45, 31 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martina magister?
Disputatio:Ebolavirus

message: Nonne Ebolae virus?Bavarese (disputatio) 10:24, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Responsum iam accepi. Gratias! Bavarese (disputatio) 10:37, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomen huius rei
Disputatio:Ebolavirus zairense

message: I corrected (?) this page and then realised it was only one day old. Sorry: I would have left it a bit longer had I realised that. I think, though, that the orthographic rules we need are those for writing Latin names, so I think the main change I made was definitely needed. Actually I'm not sure that this page is the place for stating any such rule, which applies, after all, to every virus name, not just to this genus and species. But I guess the rule has been added to the English page simply because a lot of people are writing about Ebolavirus just now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if we didn't have rules but people implicitly followed good order.Jondel (disputatio) 15:00, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, if you feel that's true in this case, you could delete the rule! I'd be on your side. But I guess Iacobus had a reason for choosing to insert it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rescripsi
Disputatio:Chiasmus

message: PRO PUDOR!
Hoc non est examplum bonum chiasmi, sed tralaticiae.
visceribus atras pascit effossis aves (Sen. Thy. 10)
Ut Chiasmus:  "visceribus atras pascit aves effossis"
replies: text: Assentior hic non de chiasmo agi. Puto potius synchysin esse. Melius exemplum ex Cicerone deprompsi. Neander (disputatio) 22:20, 4 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Thyestes 10 non est chiasmus
Disputatio:Georgius Margvelašvili

message: Duas habeo quaestiones. (I) Quid est nomen eius patronymicum? Tejmurazovič aut Parmenovič? Vide disputationem (a me ipso inceptam) apud Russophonos. Ibi conclusum est patronymicum probabiliter, sed non pro certo, Tejmurazovič fuisse. Utique haec patronymica, ut videtur, rariora in Georgia hodierna fiunt. Nunc ibi dicitur: "Гео́ргий Теймура́зович Маргвелашви́ли (в источниках встречается и другой вариант отчества — Парменович" (Georgius Tejmuraz filii Margvelašvili [in fontibus invenitur et alia versio patronymici: Parmenovič"]). (II) Quomodo patronymicum convertere debemus? Nunc "Timuri filius" adhibetur, sicut Tamerlanes/Timurus?, sed secundum :en:Teimuraz (name) nomen a Persico Tahmuras/Tahmurath deducitur. Fortasse forma Latina huius nominis est invenienda, aut fortasse Tejmuraz non mutato uti possumus.
replies: text: Erravi quando "Teimuraz" ad Timurum adsimilavi. Si hoc re vera est praenomen patris, oportet "Teimuraz" scribere. (In his paginis nomina Georgica, non Russica, interpretare conatus sum -- sed versiones Russicae saepe utiles sunt! Censeo Georgianos ibi litteram i vocalicam scribere, non j.)

text: Mihi videtur multos populos ecclesiarum Orthodoxarum sectatores patronymicis uti, Graecos, Armenos, Georgianos, Russos, Ucrainicos. Bene: id ad usum Romanum accommodare possumus. Sed, inter eos omnes, aliqui patronymicum aut reiiciunt aut non divulgant. Tali casu aut omittere possumus, aut res discrepantes in nota subiuncta citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 1 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

text: Hanc habitudinem imprimis de Russis, postea de Graecis hodiernis didici. Graeci qui nomina sua Anglice vertunt patronymicum in praenomen alterum proprium mutare solent, sed apud eos re vera est patris praenomen: p. ex. vide Aristoteles Onases (ubi statua nomen plenum confirmat, "Socrate" casu genetivo) et Eleutherius Benizelus de cuius familia ipse inquisivi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 2 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Habitudo generalis mihi non displicet; ego quoque "Ioannis filius" etc. in paginis de Russicis, Islandicis, etc. libenter utor. Georgiani re vera patronymicis rarius uti videntur; vide paginas de praesidibus Burjanadze, Saakašvili, Margvelašvili; datur autem in pagina de Ševardnadze. Nomen patronymicum est traditio Orthodoxa, sed etiam Sovietica. In disputatione quam citavi, auctor dicit haec nomina post dissolutionem URSS et Russice et in linguibus nationalibus permanere in Ucraina, Belorussia, Kazachstania, Armenia, Atropatene; neque in linguis nationalibus, neque aliquandum Russice in civitatibus Balticis; et in aliis, saepe Russice sed plerumque non in linguibus nationalibus adhibere. Ad tempus "Teimuraz filii" et notam de alio patronymico addidi; quas additiones quaeso ut inspicias! Lesgles (disputatio) 21:34, 2 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine patronymico
Disputatio:Anglosaxones

message: "Hodierno sensu nomine Anglosaxonum omnes incolae Britanniarum Regni denotantur una cum gentibus Americae septentrionalis et Oceaniae." A quibus scriptoribus, quibus linguis utentibus? Latine nunquam vidi! Oportet fortasse fontem citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 2 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probabiliter ad notiones ut :en:White Anglo-Saxon Protestant refert, sed consentio, fons Latinus desiderandus est. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:44, 2 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verba verificanda
Disputatio:Comus (deus)

message: An re vera Comus fuit deus mythologiae Graecae? Fons huius rei solus, nisi fallor, est descriptio tabulae pictae a Philostrato scripta, sed, ut infra videmus, pictoribus licet res mythologicas fingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the details in the article aren't turning up in the first pages of results on the usual search-engines; maybe they were invented by folks in the Mistick Krewe of Comus. (LOL.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:39, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fontes partis mythologicae carent
Disputatio:Chisinovia

message: Pagina contra mores ad Chisla Nova mota est quia hoc nomen non a fontibus fidelibus corroboratum est sed a commentatione etymologica in diario interretiali (blog) edita. Igitur rursus movi, sed, si re vera fontes fideles illius nominis exstant, possumus accipere. Notam de fonte hic subiungo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
* Chisla Nova. Etymologia nominis, cf. MOLDOVA DA SCOPRIRE - Italiani in Moldova, Italiani Affari in Moldova apud italiani-in-moldova.blogspot.com.
Chisinovia secundum Caroli Egger Lexicon Nominum Locorum: Supplementum referens nomina Latina vulgaria (1985), p. 81 et . -- Alexander Geraščenko (disputatio) 13:05, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene repperisti! An paginam movere oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Insula Carpenterana (Terra Mariae)

message: Does "patented to" mean that they invented it? Does "manifesta" mean that it was visible to them but not to others? Is it shown on any map? I feel I'd need to know more before this qualifies as an encyclopedia page, but if I'm being silly, please, someone who understands, explain! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 11 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now, having found the original record. I've added the reference. "Patented" seems to involve "surveyed", which makes more sense (to me), so I've said that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 11 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haud bene intellego
Disputatio:Gaziantep

message: Fons optimus huius nominis citatur, sed an possumus hoc nomen "Latinum" nuncupare? Willelmus Tyrensis nomen nativum (cf. Antep) litteris Latinis scribere conatus est. Talibus casibus nonne melius est nomen verum nativum praeferre? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 12 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis, itaque ad "Gaziantep" paginam movi, bene? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:43, 13 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Per me, valde bene. Gratias tibi ago Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 13 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Cambutium

message: Nomen "Convallis" in fonte citato non reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:12, 14 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Latinitate recentiora dicitur nominem oppidani Cambutiades esse, ex oratione exordio receptionis patrini Henricus Carolus Cambuti (Henri Charles du Cambout), episcopus Mettis, cum anno 1710 socius in Academia Francica electus sit. Eo persequitur Cambut verbum primitivum esse pro Cambutiades et consulis declinatio sequitur. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 04:31, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime repperisti, Leonelle. An  nomen oppidi "Cambutum" habemus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quamquam apud Du Cange aliae orthographiae repperiuntur, mihi videtur, Andrea, illos Cambutos non esse nisi baculos pastorales, eo loco pro investitura usos. Hic habemus alterum usum ut baculum . --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 16:49, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ha! Gratias ago. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 17 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons falsus?
Disputatio:Testa

message: Oh dear. Neander, by creating this article and moving the other one, you've made several dozen articles (e.g., Calvaria, Chesapecten jeffersonius, Margarita, Sandworm, Testudinata) link to the wrong testa. How to fix? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:13, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The quick solution is to move this new "Testa" to "Testa (fictilis)" or something similar. It's true that it's the original meaning of the word, but, that having been admitted, it may still be convenient to us not to have it occupy this spot. This spot can then be occupied either by a redirect to Testa (anatomia) (result: job finished, no problem at all) or by a discretiva page (result: changes still have to be made to incoming links but the changes are no longer urgent).

text: The time-consuming solution is for Neander, or Neander's friends, to finish the job by changing the links quickly. That means editing about 70 pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Editing those 70 pages — no big deal! If I edit, say, two pages per day, the job will be finished just before the advent of Father Christmas. Please, don't tell him that I've been a naughty boy! :–) Neander (disputatio) 20:59, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You'll finish sooner because some of the 73 testa-bearing pages don't have links on testa, which is why I spoke of only "several dozen" above. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:15, 16 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I've done a few (I count myself a member of the set named above), others have also I think. Approx. 50 remain. At Lapita I'm not sure which meaning of "Testa" was intended. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 17 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Thanks, Andrew! Lapita may have both in it. I made the changes required plus revised the style here and there. Neander (disputatio) 17:28, 17 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::You've worked hard. Christmas has come early. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: Yes, impetus Stachanovianus. :-) Neander (disputatio) 19:52, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus falsi
Disputatio:Aviarium (urbs)

message: (Vide etiam Aviarum (districtus).) Hofmannus dicit:
*apud "Nomenclatore": "Aveiro, oppid. Portugalliae, Lavara, aliis Talabrica."
*LAVARE, Lusitaniae amplum opp. Ptol. Aveiro, teste Flor. versùs ostia Vagi fluv. prope sinum parvum. 1. tantùm leuc. ab ora Oceani Occ. 2. à Talabrica in Occ. cum tit. Duc.
*TALABRICA, & TALABRIGA, Lusitan. urbs, Ptolem. Talaga Jac. Vasconcello. Baudrando Talega, vicus Beirae Provic. in Portugallia, versus Vagum fluv. 10. leuc. Portugall. suprà ejus ostia in Ortum, totidem à Conimbrica in Boream.
— Lesgles (disputatio) 21:04, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio Formulae:Pelliculae animatae a Walt Disney Societate creatae

message: Some of the articles transcluded need to be renamed. Hercules (pellicula1997) needs to be renamed as Hercules (pellicula 1997) and Big Hero 6 (film) needs to be renamed as Big Hero 6 (pellicula). Also to be renamed:
Saludos Amigos (pellicula 1943)
The Three Caballeros (pellicula 1945)
Make Mine Music (pellicula 1946)
Fun and fancy free (pellicula 1947)
Melody Time (pellicula 1948)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr Toad (pellicula 1949)
Take off the disabigs. The articles in English don't use the disabigs because they're not ambiguous titles. Plus Fun and fancy free should be Fun and Fancy Free. Also Saludos Amigos is from 1942 and The Three Caballeros is from 1944, so even the disambigs are wrong (read the English version to see what I mean). 130.160.203.73 19:06, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambigs
Disputatio Categoriae:Typographi

message: Fonte huius nominis carente, propono eos homines, qui in officina typographica meruerint (fonte fideli citato), in categoriam :Categoria:Typographi movendos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 23 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fons nominis repertus est, sed hic fons "diabolum typographi" neque virum neque puerum esse dicit sed diabolum (ad pedem litterarum) qui errores creet. Categorias igitur contribui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De categoria hic contributa "Diaboli typographi"
Disputatio:AC Milan

message: ... lineam "| procurator = [[Maximilianus Hilaris]]" quia (a) verbum "procurator" cum capsis in aliis linguis assimilare non potui (b) nomen huius hominis insolitum mihi videtur. Si erravi, textum rursus inscribite s.v.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 29 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  E capsa removi ...
Disputatio:Polus arcticus

message: Attestationes nominum septem addidimus, sed ecce, lemma hic haereditate exceptum recentissimum est, sine attestatione classica! Quid ordo erit optimus? et quid nomen pro lemmate? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:18, 2 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide etiam Polum Australem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:38, 2 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Debemus, si possibile sit, ad maximum duo nomina Latina, fontibus munita et lectoribus utiliora, inter lemmata sententiae primae proponere. Alia nomina aut in notis subiunctis aut sub rubrica == Terminologia == (vel sim.) enumerare possumus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Assentior tibi, Andrea. Itaque appellationes fontesque in proprium capitulum conduxi. Neander (disputatio) 10:09, 18 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma, nomina
Disputatio:Mamma

message: Thanks for the useful improvements, Neander, though the reduction in the size of the article reduces Vicipaedia's scores on various evaluative scales. It's always fun to see the subtle shifts in sense when syntax gets adjusted; for example: A, what was to be translated; B, suggested translation; C, your translation; D, your presumed understanding of what was to be translated:
replies: text: A. In Christian iconography, some works of art depict women

text: B. In iconographia Christiana, nonnulla artis opera mulieres depingunt

text: C. In imaginibus Christianis nonnullis mulieres depinguntur

text: D. In some Christian images, women are depicted
Between B and C, the concept of "some" has shifted. (Maybe the original nonnulla looked like an error for nonnullas?) And why the shift into the passive? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:11, 2 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, you're right about the shift of focus (unintended but indefensible). I changed the wording accordingly, preferring Latin style syntax. The shift into the passive was due to the fact that Latin depingere (unlike English depict) contracts only a [+human] subject. Neander (disputatio) 18:24, 2 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's quite defensible if it makes the style better without ruining the sense! So please keep editing! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtle shifts of focus
Disputatio:Helichrysum

message: "Helichrysum" est nomen antiquum et nomen generis. Textus hic ad nomen antiquum pertinet, sed capsa ad genus. Oportet pellucide inter duos sensus distinguere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 3 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De genere? De specie? Qua specie?
Disputatio:Joyos

message: Haec res non stipula dici potest; possumus ne plus de hoc homine habere? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:58, 5 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene, mi amice. Plura addere possum :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 6 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 22:34, 6 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brevitura
Disputatio:Matthaeus Le Nain

message: Orthographiam "Matthaeus" praeferre solemus. Nisi fons exstat pro "Mattheus", velim movere. An placet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:47, 9 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi placeo. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 19:12, 2 Maii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen