lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Carolus Orff

message: De "Si Ricardo Wagner claro esse licet, cur idem non et Carolo Orff?" Duae rationes:
replies: text: 1. Non fuit clarus.

text: 2. Notiones claritatis POV plerumque promulgant, quas vicipaediae usitate omittunt. Vide quod aliae vicipaediae de Orff dicunt:
replies: text: :de: war ein deutscher Komponist und Musikpädagoge

text: :en: was a 20th-century German composer

text: :es:  fue un compositor alemán

text: :fr: est un compositeur allemand

text: :it:  è stato un compositore tedesco

text: :pt: foi um compositor alemão

text: :ru:  немецкий композитор-экспрессионист и педагог
Nihil de claritate! Praeterea, adversus claritatem Wagnerianam (Verdianam, Brahmsianam, Beethovenianam, Bachianam, Monteverdianam, Stravinskianam, Schoenbergianam, etiam Bergianam), res gestae Orffianae sunt, et in historia musica erunt, perobscurae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:09, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

text: Meo quidem in mundo Orff est clarus, sed de declinatione vocabulorum claritatis consentio. Claritas autem indicari potest prolatione verborum musicologorum, criticorum, et sim. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:09, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Musicologus quidem sum, philosophiae doctor in musica. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:24, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Omnes consentimus, nisi fallor: propter regulas de punctu visús statutas, non nobis licet sine fontibus aliquid vel aliquem "clarum" dicere. Si adiectivum "clarum" vel sim. sine fonte iuxta rem Vicipaedianam reperimus, verbum statim delere oportet. Id ego semper facio. Si cum fonte reperimus, optime erit e.g. e fonte veram rationem et contextum notabilitatis verbis pellucidis exprimere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 17 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarus?
Disputatio:Ius domicilii

message: Quamquam haec bona conversio "right to housing" videtur, huic locutioni in fontibus iam sunt aliae significationes, praecipue (i) "ius civitatis (citizenship) adipiscendae secundum domicilium in terra habitum", ac (ii) "lex domicilii, legi terrae alienae opposita" (sed haec fortasse melius :en:Lex domicilii reddi oportet). Lesgles (disputatio) 20:40, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, recte admones (nec praeter exspectationem, nam ipse quoque talem velut praesensionem obscuram habebam). Quae cum ita sint, alia locutio invenienda est. Gratias tibi ago! Neander (disputatio) 22:32, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ius habitationis? (Quamquam dicere nequeo, sine labore cui non vaco, an hoc ius habitationis significationi quam petimus satisfaciat.) Ius habitandi? (Quamquam haec quoque locutio iam occupata esse videtur.) Neander (disputatio) 06:05, 17 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretio significationum
Disputatio:Itinerarium Antonini Augusti

message: This is better than the dog Latin in the current English Wikipedia article, but the actual name this work is published and known under seems to be Itinerarium Antonini Augusti. Is there any (good) reason to keep it at the wrong name? The provinciarum can be glossed in the running text.LlywelynII (disputatio) 03:17, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason good or bad, so far as I can see. I've moved it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move
Disputatio:Derventio (Derbia)

message: Derventio (Derbia) and Little Chester (castellum Romanum) covered the exact same content even before the move. My opinion is that they should be merged to the natural disambiguation Derventio Coritanorum (used, i.a., by the Roman Britain site). Second choice would be a merge here to Derventio (Derbia). LlywelynII (disputatio) 06:42, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Derventio Coritanorum" would need a reliable source, and I don't think there is one. Without a reliable source we would be pushing a new standard for ancient place names (like the French with their "Via Agrippa"), which we should not do. If the Roman Britain site does that, that's OK for them. I would favour "Derventio (Derbia)".

text: It wasn't clear to me, from sources available when I started these pages, that Derventio was the name of the fort at Little Chester. But that's probably a quibble -- it was at some Roman period the name of this approximate location, no doubt about that -- so I think the merge is good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Disputatio:Dantes Alagherius

message: Fontes multo plures melioresque pro orthographia "Dantes Aligherius" reperio. Movenda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, sed nunc se ipsum appellare "Dantes Alagherii" (sic) in epistulis Latinis video. Incertus sum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:04, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Deambulatorium

message: It used to be trying to say this (from en:):
replies: text: The ambulatory (Medieval Latin ambulatorium, a place for walking, from ambulare, to walk) is the covered passage around a cloister. The term is sometimes applied to the processional way around the east end of a cathedral or large church and behind the high altar.
Is it now trying to say something more like this (from de:)?

text: Als Chorumgang oder (De-)Ambulatorium (von lateinisch ambulare= gehen) wird der Bauteil eines traditionellen Kirchenbauwerks im christlichen Abendland bezeichnet, der in Weiterführung der Seitenschiffe über die Querschiffarme hinweg (sofern vorhanden) um den Chor herum angeordnet ist.
Just wondering! (The definitions fail to correspond in some particulars.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:26, 23 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

text: Equidem credidi me descriptionem perspicaciorem reddidisse. Si tibi non placet, quin mutes, dummodo deambulatorii vocabulum retineas. Neander (disputatio) 21:01, 23 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Non est mei moris ex aliis Wikipediis serviliter vertere. (Wikipediae enim non sunt in fidelium fontium numero.) Si mea definitio similior Theodiscae tibi videtur, forte accidit. Si quid in definitionibus Anglica et Theodisca interest, ad me non pertinet. Ceterum censeo nostrum non esse Vicipaedianos docere ambulatorium ab ambulandi verbo deductum esse. Non satis intellexi, quid "via tecta circa porticum" sibi vellet, nam porticus ipsa via tecta est. Nunc, Wikipedia Anglica inspecta, hanc rem addidi. Nisi placet, quin mutes. Bona natalicia exoptans Neander (disputatio) 06:08, 24 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio
Disputatio:Georgius dominus de Byron

message: Fons nostri "Domini Byron" iam datur; haec igitur removi quia ad alium Dominum Byron pertinet, sed, si cuidam displicet, rurus inscribere licet!
* Sir William Blackstone et al., Reports of Cases Determined in the Several Courts of Westminster, vol. 2., p. 742: "In Lord Byron's Case, 1 Ventr. 100, (mentioned by GOULD, J.,) M. 22 Car. 2, there was the same attempt. . . . Dies Lunae prox. post Crastino Anim 22 Car 2. Dominus Byron." A diff. Lord Byron, but showing that the phrase Dominus Byron pertains to any of the lords Byron, of whom the poet is the famous one.
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 25 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons nominis 

message: I found a reference from his school days, in which he is styled as Georgius Dominus de Byron, while before he was Georgius Gordon Byron, here. Is that a valid source?--Xaverius 14:28, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it certainly is! I thought at first it agreed with our current lemmata, but no, it doesn't. I notice also that a naughty child changed "Gordon" to "Gordonus" back in 2015: I'll change that back now, to agree with the current pagename, but some further change will evidently be wanted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :This story has been told in more than one way, with the Latin names slightly differing! "Georgius+Gordon+Byron"&hl=la&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOr5O_-evjAhXG4IUKHRFZBIAQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q="Georgius%20Gordon%20Byron"&f=false Here is the version that Google found for me. This confirms our first lemma and current pagename "Georgius Gordon Byron", but it also confirms your exact form "Georgius Dominus de Byron". I believe this: we have two strong sources for it and it's proper recent Latin. Several modern sources retell the story with the name "Dominus Byron" (no "Georgius", no "de": easily found on Google) but I think their authors have followed an inaccurate source, and we did too. As between "Georgius Byron Gordon" and "Georgius Gordon Byron" for the Latin version of his childhood name, I would still like to see more reliable sources, but until they are found I believe your source rather than mine, because although the boy was christened George Gordon Byron, his father by this time was calling himself John Byron Gordon, and it's likely that the school would have taken his father's surname as official. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::If anything, this source I came across dates to the year in which Lord Byron died. I dont' know if it is possible to find the original school records, but that Dominus de Byron seems as close as we are going to get?--Xaverius 16:10, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, it's good. Preferable to his childhood name for which we don't have such a well-confirmed Latin form.

text: :::We don't usually capitalize titles like "rex" etc. in pagenames, so "Georgius dominus de Byron" seems closest to our usual style. Is that OK with you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::No objections!--Xaverius 21:34, 5 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgius Dominus de Byron
Disputatio:Terra foederalis (Germania)

message: "Land" (ad litteram "terra") in Germania non est aliud verbum pro plaga vel regione, sed subiectum quoddam sui iuris (quamvis circumscripti) significat. Melius mihi videtur notione civitate uti (sicut in commentationibus Austriae et Civitatum Foederatarum Americae.--Utilo (disputatio) 11:18, 26 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse Civitates Germaniae? Praeterea puto hanc commentationem cum indice regionum Germaniae contribuendam esse. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:12, 5 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cum Lesgles de contributione consentio:  quid censent alii?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:10, 5 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

message: Quis vestrum paginam istam cum pagina Index regionum Germaniae intitulata coniungere potest? Et quis vestrum in fasciculo terminos adaptare potest (Respublica foederalis --> Respublica foederata, Municipium --> Commune, Municipia libera --> Circuli urbani, Municipia comitatensia --> communes comitatenses). Eo vel eis gratissimus essem. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:48, 28 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne tumet ipse potes, mi Bis-Taurine? Simpliciter necesse est res utiles e pagina reiecta per "copy-paste" in paginam selectam inserere. Quo facto, ultimo loco paginam reiectam in redirectionem convertis (textu omni deleto, verbis #REDIRECT Nomen paginae selectae substitutis). Tempta! Si necesse sit, adiuvare possum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago, care Andrea, ob ductionem tuam! Coniunctionem ergo facere potui. Quis autem vestrum inscriptionem imaginis mutare potest?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:36, 2 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Id facere possum ... fortuna favente. Enumera mihi, s.t.p., rubricas quas emendare necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 3 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::In hoc fasciculo 500 px supra characteribus pinguibus scripta adaptanda sunt. Te, Andreas, prego, adiuves, te, o Fortuna, imploro, faveas. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:04, 4 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::A, bene. Enumerationem antea non vidi. An verba "comitatus/comitatensia" certa censemus? Vide Disputatio:Comitatus (quam disputationem tu incepisti!) Mihi videtur Iacobum archangelum archanglicistam nostrum "comitatús" praeferre, aliis incertis ... Sed res haud magni momenti est: possumus imaginem bis emendare si volumus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 5 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Versionem Latinam (fortuna lentissime favente) feci, sicut hic vides. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 19 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adiutorium quaesitum
Disputatio:Max Klinger

message: Maximus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 31 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Aut fortasse Maximilianus? Nescio: apud alias Wikipedias "Max" appellatur. "Maxus" haud licet fingere! Si re vera originem nescimus, fortasse melius simpliciter "Max"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 31 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Margarita

message: A handy-seeming word, but amice Lesgles, you removed the dubsig from it. Coronatio isn't found in L&S, or in Ainsworth's, or in White's, or in Cassell's, which, for the English coronation, advises: "express by phrase with diadema." So maybe impositio diadematis (and diademate imposito for 'after the coronation' and similar contextual adjustments)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:04, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Two possibilities in Ainsworth's: pompa qua rex inauguratur and coronae impositio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:06, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :In case it's thought acceptable to use a medieval word for a medieval-to-modern ceremony, "incoronatio" is found in Du Cange. But isn't there also the classical word "coronamen"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:06, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sorry, I moved too fast with the dubsigs! Du Cange also seems to have "coronatio": "INCORONATIO, Coronatio, Ital. Incoronazione", and it is also quite common in medieval and early modern books, e.g. Ordines Coronationis Franciae. But I'm fine with the classical variants too! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:39, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta (Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum. Societas Litterarum Finnicarum, 2006) et Ebbe Vilborg (Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Andra upplagan. Norstedts akademiska förlag, Stockholm, 2009) et Christian Cavallin (Svensk-latinsk ordbok, 1875-1876) omnes coronationem praebent. Neander (disputatio) 04:12, 4 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Coronatio''
Disputatio:Urgellum

message: Mihi videtur "Urgellum" nomen simplicius et usitatius esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 6 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Res ita esse videtur, ut dixisti!--Utilo (disputatio) 15:16, 6 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Patelisius Punou-Ki-Hihifo Finau

message: Puto Patelisium, nomen quasi Latinum pro Tongane Patelisio, falsum esse pro Patricio, sed Tonganae peritum rogabo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:18, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Franciscus II (imperator)

message: Salve Bis-Taurine! Disputationem de verbo imperatore/Imperatore in titulis scribendo inchoavi, vide Tabernam!--Utilo (disputatio) 14:19, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 6. Lipsiae 1906, p. 900 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mensis Ianuarii 2020

message: Suntne fontes nominis Sacri ... Imperatoris? Imperium nominatum est sacrum, sed de isto titulo imperatoris dubito.Bavarese (disputatio) 16:32, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacer Romanus Imperator
Disputatio:Filix

message: Pagina "Pteridophyta" perlecta, mihi videtur "filices" sicut hic definimus eandem rem esse atque Monilophyta. An verum est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversum est. Filices, monilophyta, polypodiophyta, filicophyta similia sunt, sed varii botanistae variis utuntur definitionibus. Exempli gratia, hic tractatus nomini q.e. Monilophyta obtrectat et "Polypoliophyta" proponit. Vide etiam :en:Talk:Fern. Ad tempus, filicem vocabulum Latinissimum optavi, saltem donec disceptatio solvitur. Fortasse monilophyta huc redirigi potest? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:55, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Pichilemu

message: Revera nomen substantivum Pichilemu nomen adiectivum Pichilemus, -a, um gignit? Non, fortasse, Pichilemuensis, -e ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:44, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen adiectivum

message: Et casum genetivum Pichilemi gignit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:44, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus genetivus
Disputatio:Motus horologii

message: Fonte huius versionis absente, paulisper quaesivi. Repperi "secundum/contra horologii motum" in lexico Russico atque in variis libris. Quid censetis? Suntne aliae versiones? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:22, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Equidem suasioni tuae fontibus confirmatae assentior. Etiam cursus horologii attestatum est. Neander (disputatio) 04:10, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De vocabulis
Disputatio:Theodicea augustiniana

message: Verbum Latinum "Theodicea" non reperio. An melius "Theodicaea"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Theodicea aliquantum crebrius in Libris Google quam Theodicaea reperitur. OED, s.v. "theodicy": "< French théodicée, the title of a work of Leibniz (1710), < Greek θεός God + δίκη justice"; s.v. "theodicaea": "Apparently an erron. Latinization of French théodicée in the title of a work by Leibniz" ("bonam" autem Latinizationem non dat). Etiam est locus "Sancti Angeli in Theodice" (sed hoc non ad rem pertinet). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:11, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :I suppose the OED must be right, though I agree it's a pity they didn't say what the ideal Latin or Greek form would be. Thanks for checking. Let's leave it, then. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Edmundus Debeaumarché

message: Confer:
replies: text: :quae nazistis restituit 'which restored for the Nazis', 'which gave back to the Nazis'
replies: text: :quae nazistis restitit 'which resisted the Nazis'
Typo? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: restituit
Disputatio:Matritum

message: Nomen "Matritum" in lexico universali Iohannis Iacobi Hoffmanni, quem auctorem nominis esse aliquis scripsit, non inveni.
Ibi autem (locus I, locus II) et duabus in imaginibus (imago I, imago II) antiquis nomen "Madritum" inveni. Flo.bayer (disputatio) 17:56, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Numeros fontium sequentes inveni in libris Google:
replies: text: :"Madritum" 886; "Matritum" 605

text: :"Madriti" 3250; "Matriti" 6470

text: :"Madritensis" 468; "Matritensis" 412

text: Itaque duo nomina fere aequa videntur. Madridium quoque invenitur, sed rarius, atque Mageritum, Magerit etc. Si placet omnibus paginam ad Madridum movere, ego non contra dicam. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:12, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''De nomine Matriti (Madrid)''': Matritum aut Madritum 

message: Praterea nescio, cur nomen "Magerit" non adiungatur, cum ter legatur hac in pagina, quae conferenda post auctorem Rodericum Ximenium scripta est. Flo.bayer (disputatio) 17:56, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''De nomine Matriti (Madrid)''': Magerit
Disputatio:Crispianus Passaeus

message: E pagina :it:Crispijn van de Passe conversa. De auctoribus vide historiam eius paginae --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 23:26, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

message: Pagina Anglica habet 1564-1637; textus noster 1617-1668, sed categoriae nostrae 1564-1637. Textus noster errat si re vera pater fuit Crispini II (natus 1597). Ergo corrigo: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 2 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De annis vitae
Disputatio Formulae:Versio

message: Andrew, this template is is currently in use in 6 articles and on 3 article talk pages. What do you think, shall we keep this template, or shall we replace it by putting Formula:Attributio on the article talk page and then delete Formula:Versio? --UV (disputatio) 21:23, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I created both of them! It doesn't matter much to me, but Formula:Attributio allows insertion of the version number (if editors wish to do that) and it requires slightly less typing, so perhaps it is preferable. My slight preference therefore is to use Formula:Attributio on which everyone has now agreed. In any case, it is better to put it on the talk page than the article itself, I am sure.

text: Do you agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Perfect! --UV (disputatio) 21:48, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Formula:Versio]] vs. [[Formula:Attributio]]
Disputatio:Appendix Probi

message: I'm an undergraduate student reading Classics at Salamanca University. 
I'm writing here because there is a mistake in the text. 
* maxima fons. The noun fons is not feminine in Latin, but masculine. It should be maximus fons. 
Please, correct this very common mistake as soon as possible. -- [Anon]
replies: text: In the spirit of vicilandia, feel free to correct it yourself! Also, you'll find innumerable such mistakes elsewhere in Vicipaedia, and please help out by correcting them too. Start with articles marked  or with some other indication of imperfection. All useful assistance will be welcome! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:37, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :I corrected this page, since the writer above said "please"! But everything you say is true, Iacobe, and I hope you have encouraged a new Vicipaedian to start work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The error here may have been due to Muphry's [sic] law. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:14, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mendum
Disputatio:Zhu Zuxiang

message: I marked this "Non stipula" because the external links don't appear to be relevant and have not been usefully described for Latin readers, the man's works have not been listed with their real titles, and three of the four proposed categories are not supported by the text. In addition there's no incoming link. Would need more work, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 15 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non stipula
Disputatio:Logotypus

message: De lemmate, quod Logotypus olim fuit, sed Logotypum nunc est, cum nota:
replies: text: "Sic Neograece λογότυπο (neut.; e.g. apud Vicipaediam Neograecam) vel stylo catharevusa λογότυπον (e.g. hic)."
Huius vocabuli fundamenta sunt Graecum τύπος (non τύπον), a quo nobis sunt verbum typus et verba derivata generitypus, holotypus, isotypus, lectotypus, neotypus, paratypus, syntypus, et topotypus (non generitypum, holotypum, et cetera). Cur verbum a Neograeco sermone novissime mutuamur, cum nobis iam sit verbum typus?  IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 12 Martii 2024 (UTC)

text: Ego quoque credo paginam esse movendam ad “Logotypus”. At, cum Andrew paginam ad “Logotypum” moverit, sententiam eius quaero. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:28, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haud "novissime" movi, sed abhinc quinque annis! Id feci quia verbum "logotypus" iam diu fonte carebat; fons vocabuli masculini Latini quaesivi sed non repperi; compositum huius generis, ex elementis Graecis constructum, Graece genus neutrum postulare solet. Recte ergo Neograeci construxerunt. (Nexus, quem citavi, non iam deficit: re vera bene respondet.)

text: :Si praeferimus legi Latinistarum botanicorum oboedire (cf. "type" apud Stearn, Botanical Latin ubi exempla iam ab Iacobo data enumerantur) non obstruo. Oportet formulam "Convertimus" imponere, nisi fons huius vocabuli Latini his diebus reperiri potest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Gratias tibi ago, Andrew. Formulā  additā, commentatio mota est. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:06, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Logotypu(m/s)
Disputatio:Symboli pacis

message: LilyKitty, dicis "Die 21 Februarii annis 1957, signum pacis . . . in Civitatibus Foederatis et alibi ascitum est." Re vera? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:44, 21 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Annis 1950 aut die 21 Februarii 1957?