lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Liber Precum Publicarum

message: The article presently begins:
replies: text: Liber Precum Publicarum (titulus versionis Latinae: ex origine Book of Common Prayer)Confer . est orationum liber. . . .
Aside from the logic that would prefer to see the footnote inside the parenthesis, I submit that putting boldface text inside parentheses in the first sentence like this is typographically ugly. Why have a parenthesis at all? Perhaps something like this would be better:

text: Liber Precum Publicarum, ex origine Anglica The Book of Common Prayer,Confer . est orationum liber. . . .
Or:

text: Liber Precum Publicarum (ex origine Anglica The Book of Common Prayer'Confer .) est orationum liber. . . .
Nonnegligible numbers of articles will have a Latin lemma derived from a non-Latin original, and I suggest that their typography (whatever it is) be the same. Maybe somebody would like to go through such articles as we have now, collect their first sentences, and display them so we can see the possibilities. Alas, the article Winnie ille Pu is about the bear, not the book, and that causes no end of difficulties in its first paragraph; perhaps the article should be split. IacobusAmor 11:21, 24 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :As to typography, I suggest you devise the ideal format, Iacobe! This article has an unusual place in our rules, in that (like Winnie ille Pu if that article happened to be about the book) it is about a text originally in another language, but whose title exists in a (published) Latin form because the text was afterwards translated into Latin. So the format you devise for this article will apply (I think) to relatively few others.

text: :[Added:] For a clue to the number of currently existing articles of this type, see :Categoria:Litterae Latine versae. There will be others later, no doubt: see e.g. Libri Latine redditi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:26, 24 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typographia
Disputatio:Equuleus (constellatio)

message: Equuleus minima constellatio in caelo septentrionali sita est. = 'The smallest constellation, Equuleus, has depended upon the southern sky'? Secundum Cassell's, situm esse in = an idiom for 'rest upon, depend upon'. I'll go change it. IacobusAmor 16:07, 24 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma &c.
Disputatio:Benikazi

message: Andrew changed Tudela for Tutela, but Hoffmann has Tudela - have we got any other source for Tutela?--Xaverius 09:13, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I double checked... it has Tutela aut Tudela--Xaverius 09:23, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have no special preference for Tutela. It's up to you. I simply remembered that I had already made a discretiva page Tutela, and didn't want it to get overlooked! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 27 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutela
Disputatio:Pyramus et Thisbe

message: The love story of Pyramus and Thisbe, not really a part of Roman mythology, is actually a sentimental romance. It is briefly summarized by Hyginus (Fabulae 242) and more fully elaborated in Ovid (Metamorphoses 4).

message: We do already have articles on Pyramus and Thisbe separately (as far as they can be treated separately). I suggest these two good articles be merged into this one, or perhaps this one be deleted and Pyramus (or Thisbe) be renamed to Pyramus et Thisbe. We do not need two or even three separate articles, do we? --Fabullus 05:30, 29 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Combine with [[Pyramus]] and [[Thisba]]
Disputatio:Inscriptio Comitioli

message: I think I've got all the abreviations and ligatures done properly, but if you feel the latin text doesn't seem right, please, do change it, if it fits with what is written in the inscription, in the picture--Xaverius 09:24, 3 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed the correct and full text.
thread_title: Help with transliteration
Disputatio:Regalis Societas Zoologica Londiniensis

message: I think maybe Societas Zoologica Londiniensis. But I can't find a source. Google throws up one case of Societas Zoologica Britannica, but that is not the society's real name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoologica — unless London hosts a brand of zoology of its own ... --Neander 21:36, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Regalis Societas Entomologica Londiniensis

message: Hendrice, in "Societas Entomologiae Londoniensis est societas physica specialitatem Entomologia, Londini anno 1833 constituta," how do you construe specialitatem Entomologia? IacobusAmor 12:20, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: est societas specialitatem constituta

message: What happened to the word Royal, which has been part of the society's legal name since 1855? IacobusAmor 13:01, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Little mistake, i've renamed it, Hendricus 17:55, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :That was a good move: but notice my suggestion, already on the page, that "Entomologica" would be better than "Entomologiae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think i leave that question open for others, Hendricus 17:43, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::No problem. Let's wait and see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Entomologica; for example, Societas Entomologica Fennica, etc. --Neander 21:30, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal

message: This seems to mean "Impersonate! Bring in!" or something like that. What's it supposed to mean? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:32, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: important persons or famous persons, `Hendricus 15:18, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :... who were members of the Society? So, maybe Sodales praecipui (Praecipuus can mean "most significant" or "most important") or Sodales noti (Notus can mean "well known"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:37, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The list as mentioned comes from the En.wiki, Hendricus 17:47, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I see. They call it "Famous members": in Latin, "Sodales noti". Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
replies: text: ::::Is that noti a medievalism? Classically, according to Cassell's, notus is 'known, familiar, customary', and sometimes 'notorious'. (Granted, some young people these days don't distinguish between 'famous' and 'notorious'.) For 'famous', Cassell's recommends (prae)clarus, inlustris, and celeber, in that order. IacobusAmor 20:51, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes, it could well be a medievalism. By all means insert your preferred classical term! See above: do you have a view about entomologiae/entomologica in the name of the society (I can't find a Latin source for this name)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Persona importa
Disputatio:Museum Britannicum

message: Hendrice, in which source did you find the name "Museum Brittania" attested? It looks horribly wrong to me, but if there is a source, well, we should cite it. --UV 14:54, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Translated from: The British Museum.Hendricus 14:57, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ok. Let us first find the appropriate words and then let us make sure that the words agree in form.

text: : The English name that we wish to translate is "The British Museum" (not "Britain Museum", "Museum of Britain" or something else). Unlike the noun "Britain", "British" is an adjective; the Latin equivalent is Britannicus (m.), Britannica (f.), Britannicum (n.) [There is also the adjective Britannus, which is attested with Propertius, but this form is quite uncommon, so let us ignore it.] Note that the word has two n, but only one t.

text: : Now, we need to make sure that the adjective agrees in case, number and gender with "museum, -i n.", therefore we get "Museum Britannicum". Unless someone finds an attested source, I would therefore propose to move this page to "Museum Britannicum". --UV 15:12, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: I agree with you, Hendricus 15:16, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

thread_title: Recensio mense Augusto 2020
Disputatio:Exitus (grammatica)

message: Est "exitus" suffixum? IacobusAmor 16:50, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi videtur.--Rafaelgarcia 16:58, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Versum est fortasse verbatim a lingua scholarum Anglicarum ("word ending"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::'Exitus verbi' non versus est e lingua scholastica Anglica, sed derivatus est e grammaticis Latinis antiquis: sic Servius in Vergilii Aeneidos Libros 11.522 disserit de nominibus "quae exeunt in -es". --Fabullus 05:57, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Gratias ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

text: :Formulam "" substitui; sed, si dissentitis, reverte! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 12 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Si accurate rem perspicimus, exitus verbi non idem valere videtur ac suffixum. Linguis praecipue agglutinativis (sicut puta Finnicae) suffixa sunt. Linguae autem fusionales sive flexivae (sicut Latina), quae ratione "Verbi et paradigmatis" ("Word and Paradigm") describi solent, exitús habent, nam saepe difficile est dictu, ubi radix vel stirps verbi desinat ubique suffixum incipiat. Exempli gratia, de verbi forma lupōrum ambiguum est, utrum suffixum genetivi pluralis /lup-ōrum/ an /lupō-rum/ an /lupo-:rum/ describi debeat. Quae cum ita sint, verba in paradigmata disponi solent, ubi reapse formae non dissecantur, sed quaeque forma integra ex aliis formis paradigmaticis concluditur. Alium usum exitús verbi proposuit Joan Bybee de schematis disserens. --Neander 02:44, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

text: :Non omnia suffixa sunt exitus/terminationes; e.g. suffixa quoque sunt -ulus; -tas; -men; -monia; -io; -tura; -or; tus; -cus; -ides; -arius; -ina; -que; et multa alia. Haec cum addita sunt vocabula creant nova. Quoque videtur non omnes vocabuli sunt verbi; cum de grammatica et partibus orationis tractamus vocabuli sunt nomen, pronomen, verbum, adverbium, coniunctio, praepositio, et interiectio. Non sola verba, sed omnes partes orationes accipunt suffixa.--Rafaelgarcia 00:50, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Omnia suffixa sunt morphemata (vi technicá), cum omnes exitús non sint morphemata. Redirectio parallelismum theoreticum praefixi, suffixi, infixi (ut affixorum species) perturbat, itaque revocanda est. Exitus verbi non idem valet ac suffixum! --Neander 02:45, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Id dixisti melius accuratiusque quam ego, ut semper.--Rafaelgarcia 03:33, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Conatus sum ad paginas corrigendas, sed menda mea sententia manent:dubio de eo quod scriptum est.--Rafaelgarcia 04:10, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Optime fecisti, cum redirectionem revocasti. Suffixum est terminus technicus, qui ad morphologiam linguarum praecipue agglutinativarum describendam valet. De exitu iam paullulum supra disputavi. --Neander 12:45, 12 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffixum?
Disputatio:Reccaredus I (rex Visigothorum)

message: Bis nupsit 'He was twice a bride'. ?! IacobusAmor 11:24, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: he married twice... would it be then bis in matrimonium ductus est or in matrimonium bis uxores duxit? I thought nubo was "to marry"--Xaverius 11:31, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nubere = '(of a woman) to marry', literally 'to cover/veil oneself (as a bride for a man)'. Apparently, it's related to nubes 'cloud'. IacobusAmor 11:34, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I tried another rewrite of that sentence. Since the ladies are the object of the verb, they can be in the accusative all through. Not satisfied though. If you can say "he married twice" in three words in English, I bet Latin can do it just as neatly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::And another go. My usual model is Suetonius, and he would surely have left out the "bis" and the "uxores/mulieres": that's obvious, he would have said to himself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bis nupsit
Disputatio:Hermannus

message: Quid ergo cogitemus de Hermann Hesse? Mutandum? --Neander 19:35, 15 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

message: A dead link leads us nowhere. The Romans used the word "Arminius" for Hermann, and if nobody objects, I think we should use this instead.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:33, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't clear that "Arminius" represented Hermann to the Romans, though some notable authors old and new have believed it, including Martinus Lutherus (so I'm told) and Robertus Graves. There are many later sources for the conversion Hermann > "Hermannus": I have just cited one at Hermannus Hesse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 22 Martii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have now cited some other sources and moved some other cases of "Arminius" to "Hermannus". If there is no source, should we in general prefer Armin > Arminius but Hermann > Hermannus? I think we should, but others may disagree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 22 Martii 2023 (UTC)

text: :Fontibus rite citatis, "Arminios" recentiores nonnullos in "Hermannos" mutavi. Quid faciamus si fontem nullum de praenomine Latino hominum recentiorum habeamus? Mea mente, Armin > Arminius sed Hermann > Hermannus. Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 22 Martii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Tacitus in Germania (§2) says the German people stem from a certain Mannus, son of the god Tuisto. This Mannus is stated in the Loeb edition to mean 'man', presumably therefore a Latin rendering of the German word now written as Mann. If that word in turn relates to the mann in the name Hermann, we'd have a pertinent though partial classical attestation. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:30, 22 Martii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Nice one. It now seems an obvious place to look, but I never thought of it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 22 Martii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hermannus? Source, please.
Disputatio:Regnum Navarrae

message: There were two main noble families (familiae nobiles) in Navarre in the later period, these were the Agramonteses/Agramondarrak and the Beaumonteses/Beaumondarrak. Hoffmann has Agramontium for a town somewhere in Spain (not Navarre), but I guess it could be a way of making the family name from there. How would it be the adjective from Agramontium? Agramontinus? Agramontenses? or should we leave both surnames unstranslated?--Xaverius 17:52, 17 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Untranslated from What, Xaveri? From Basque or Spanish? --Ioscius (disp) 23:17, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yet another problem; -montes(es) translates literaly into Basque as *-mendiar(rak) > -mondar(rak). I would go for the Spanish version, but of course, depending what you read you will find their names in Spanish, Basque and even French (Beaumontais and Agramontais)--Xaverius 12:35, 31 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::And then I remembered the Gipuzkoan counterpart families: Oñacinos/Oinaztarrak and Gamboinos/Gamboatarrak--Xaverius 12:49, 31 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Agramonteses y Beaumonteses
Disputatio:Robertus Ludovicus Stevenson

message: Hendrice, why did you remove this category? It corresponds with "People from Edinburgh" in the English wiki. It's distinct from "Alumni of the University of Edinburgh." The English wiki even puts Stevenson in a third Edinburgh-related category: "Edinburgh Academical" (whatever that means). IacobusAmor 12:26, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because i thought that Edimburgum was written with a "m", Edi"m"burgum, Hendricus 15:35, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :As to that, I think both versions (n and m) exist. (Although I can't find Hendricus's adjective, "Edimburgiensis", anywhere else.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::So is somebody going to put the category back where it was? IacobusAmor 17:26, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, go on, Iacobe, you can put it back if you like! But it wasn't a category, only a redlink: no one on Vicipaedia has yet made any categories for "people from particular cities". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:55, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edimburgenses/Edinburgenses
Disputatio:Conchologia

message: Hendrice, if the word really is Gastropus, -podis (as the definition says at Gastropoda), then the genitive Gastropodum (as inserted by anonymus user 130.232.192.114) should be correct, so I've changed it back. Google shows a handful of instances of Gastropodorum but around 1400 examples of Gastropodum. Experience shows that when the result of comparative searching is that lopsided, the democratically chosen term is usually the correct one. IacobusAmor 12:36, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetivus pluralis
Disputatio:Jurassic Park (discretiva)

message: Nonne hortus? --Ioscius (disp) 15:00, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Confer et Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_8#National_park. Mihi videtur vivarium (game preserve, animal garden) hic melius fuisse quam hortus sed quid melius sensum "park" in "Jurrasic park" reddat nescio. Forsitan ambo vocabula bene serviunt.--Rafaelgarcia 15:30, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :De titulis librorum regulam habemus (VP:TNP#Libri et arte facta). Igitur nexum de libro mutavi. De titulis pellicularum nescio ...

text: :In re "park" credo Vivarium Iurassicum recipiendum (nisi fortasse Paradisus Iurassicus? Sed verbum "paradisus" alias sententias habet!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Latinitatem corrigi etc.: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:10, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hic est fons, qua dicit nomen pellicularum "Horti Iurassici" esse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5uumdXZsuM Constantinus Lepusculus (disputatio) 19:26, 14 Februarii 2022 (UTC)

message: This page doesn't point to even one real relevant article; and until there is one, no one is likely to visit it. For that reason, I think, it doesn't yet amount to a useful Vicipaedia page: hence I've marked it "Non stipula". Am I right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:28, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It points to Michael Crichton...Oh I see you mean because its a discretiva page, it should have links to pages that need to be distinguished. Neverheless, it is useful I think because it presents a scaffold upon which to expand our offerings. Definitely we should have some page on Jurrasic park somewhere sometime.--Rafaelgarcia 23:44, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, you saw my reasoning: we can't really need a discretiva page until we have at least one, ideally two, articles to which that title might belong. However, I agree with you that we really ought to have a page on the story, so I'll remove the formula and we'll see if someone writes one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:10, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubi sunt paginae? Igitur: Non stipula
Disputatio Categoriae:Homines vivi

message: I am not sure whether the name Vivi is unambiguous enough. One might be tempted to add articles about animal species and plant species to it, because animals and plants are living beings as well. This is obviously not intended here. What shall we do? Choose a more precise name (Homines viventes?) Add an explanation to the category page that this category is only intended to cover human individuals? --UV 20:44, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Easy to change at this stage. This is the name that Iacobus originally suggested; personally I like simple names like this and would favour adding an explanation at the head of the page. But let's see what others say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:53, 20 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :For the moment, I have added an explanation to the page. OK? We should announce on the Taberna, I think, that this category is required for biographies of living persons. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Good! --UV 13:16, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I agree the title is overbroad.  Not that I'd put animal or plant species here, but biographies of individual creatures like, oh, Punxsutawney Phil would belong under the title.  Simple titles are good, but they should be accurate as well; if the English wiki can live with two words in the title, so can we.  —Mucius Tever 22:57, 26 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The custom in other wikis—
replies: text: ::::::bs:Kategorija:Živi ljudi
replies: text: ::::::en:Category:Living people

text: ::::::es:Categoría:Personas vivas

text: ::::::eo:Kategorio:Vivantaj homoj

text: ::::::id:Kategori:Orang hidup

text: ::::::ru:Категория:Ныне живущие

text: ::::—suggests that we should have a two-item category, like "Homines vivi." I don't know whether viventes would be apter, but vivus must have been in common classical use, as there's an idiom, vivus vidensque, used by Terence & Cicero. IacobusAmor 13:31, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Iacobus having spoken, I don't oppose a change. Homines vivi, then? Another task for UVBot? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: Unless objection is raised, I will move this category to Categoria:Homines vivi in a few days. I will also point this out in the Taberna. --UV 21:31, 14 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  de titulo huius categoriae
Disputatio:Via Francigena

message: Quid significat hoc verbum arcanum (e.g., Sce Martin in Fosse, Sce Gemiane, Sce Maria Glan., Sce Peter Currant, Sce Dionisii, etc.)? Nonne est siglum ("abbreviatio")? IacobusAmor 12:40, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio sit versio vernacula pro "sanctus / sancta" an siglum eiusdem linguae ... --Utilo 16:16, 27 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

text: A quick look into Google helps me to understand, that sca / sce are probably short forms for "sancta / sanctus"; nonetheless sce for sanctus seems odd if it is meant to be latin (therefore again: vernacular / "pre-Italian"?).--Utilo 16:43, 27 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sc is the usual late Roman abbreviation for sanctus. the abbrevaition in the nominative would have been S(an)c(t)a in feminine and S(an)c(tus)/S(anc)t(us) in masculine. Sce was usually the genitive feminine: S(an)c(ta)e, but in romance and very late vulgar Latin, it might as well have been a masculine nominative.--Xaverius 17:08, 27 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sce
Disputatio:Meranum

message: Haec pagina iterat quae in pagina Merona scripta sunt. Melius erit Meronam ad Meranum movere: sic historia paginae conservabitur. --Fabullus 15:06, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen Merona erratum est.
replies: text: :Tecum consentio. Sed non opus est novam paginam facere: modo paginam veterem move ad paginam recti nominis, i.e. paginae veteri novum nomen impone: sic historia paginae conservatur. --Fabullus 15:16, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Anonymi paginas movere non possunt. Ego igitur Meranum delevi et Meronam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 22 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagina delenda
Disputatio:Genusia

message: De origine urbis genusinae plures ac antiqui sciptores agunt, sed incerte collocant in temporis cursum, ante dominationem romanam necnon possessionem factam antiquitus a civitatibus Graeciae in Messapiae finibus, exinde magnam Graeciam dictis. Quod ex graeco sermone nomen devenisse tradunt - de verbis ghignomai ac ousia - interpretari potest siquidem latinis verbis vel vulgaribus modernis sermocinationibus sub ratione fecunditatis. -- [ Flos parthenopea sive de amoribus ]
thread_title: De origine urbis
Disputatio:Fossae Papirianae

message: In sententia
replies: text: Fossae Papirianae (deinde Versilia) historica ac geographica regio Italiae, in Tuscia, ad  septemtrionem Pisarum, ad meridionem Massae et intra Alpes Apuanae et mare Ligusticum est.
locus huius verbi est est falsus. Vide disputationem antiquam (in taberna?). IacobusAmor 12:18, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Est