lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Index Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum

message: Qua fonte nisus hancce rem imperatores Constantinopolitani nuncupasti? Qui semper imperatores Romanos se professi sunt nostrisque diebus imperatores Byzantini a litteratis vocantur. Longa inscriptionis verba obtuto mihi in mentem veniunt nugae illae elegiacae: Turbabantur Constantinopolitani | innumerabilibus sollicitudinibus.--Ceylon 11:35, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ut verus sit hexameter scilicet illo "per-" opus est nobis: Pérturbábantúr Constántinópolitáni. Nihilominus et sic hexameter deficit, quia nomen Constantīnǒpǒlītanī scanditur ut indicavi. Quis scripsit hos versus, quaeso? --Fabullus 15:23, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Optimo iure me monuisti, Fabulle, sed quid sentis de imperatorum titulo? De versiculis illis ineptis vide quod mihi obvenit interrete perscrutanti:

text: A good story is told, illustrating the rivalry which has existed for three centuries between Westminster and Eton Schools. It is said that the Etonians on one occasion sent the Westminster boys an hexameter verse composed of only two words, challenging them to produce a pentameter also in two words so as to complete the sense. The Eton line ran thus:—
replies: text: :"Conturbabantur Constantinopolitani."

text: The Westminster boys replied to the challenge "by return of post:"—
replies: text: :"Innumerabilibus sollicitudinibus."

text: :As the Eton line contains an obvious false quantity, the Westminster boys, who contrived to steer clear of mistakes, may be allowed to have had the best of it.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45168
--Ceylon 15:35, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

text: Si vis notam tuam ab aliis usoribus videri posse  addendum est (ut ego nunc facio). Quod attinet ad titulum recte dicis. 'Imperatores Byzantini' placet? --Fabullus 16:02, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Addidi fontem tituli "Imperatores Constantinopolitani". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen imperii

message: Cur Theophilus II est hac in pagina? Ulla discere non poteram de Theophilo II...est eo esse pars huius paginae...? Si vero sic, est usor qui sciat de vita eius? Gratias! CeleritasSoni 22:17, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Theophilo II 

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Archaea

message: Secundum paginas Anglicas et Nederlandicas de hoc lemmate, genus plurale huius nominis est 'taxa'. Hinc sequitur nomen taxon esse neutrum secundae declinationis, quod tamen retinet nonnullas formas pseudo-Graecas (illud 'pseudo-' addo, quia re vera non est nomen Graecum, tantummodo e Graeco derivatum). Ergo haec debet esse declinatio:
*nom.sg. taxon
*gen.sg. taxi
*dat.sg. taxo
*acc.sg. taxon
*abl.sg. taxo
*nom.pl. taxa
*gen.pl. taxorum
*dat.pl. taxis
*acc.pl. taxa
*abl.pl. taxis
thread_title: declinatio nominis 'taxon'
Disputatio:Sequana

message: I always thought that the French river Seine was called Sequana in Latin, as it was called by every ancient Latin writer from Caesar onwards. Sequanus I only knew as the singular of Sequani, a famous tribe in ancient Gaul. I do not exclude the possibility that at some time someone may have called the river Sequanus (although I would like to see the source), but even so priority should be given to Sequana. Could someone please interchange the article Sequanus and the redirection page Sequana? Thanks a lot. --Fabullus 14:07, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [copied from Taberna:] I've been meaning to do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago! --Fabullus 16:05, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequana/Sequanus
Disputatio:Irene Atheniensis

message: Origo nominis "Irenia" nescio. Nonne debemus "Irene" scribere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absque dubio debemus. Vide hic www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenahist/matthiae1/books/matthiaetheatrum_7.xml vel hic www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/muliers.html.--Ceylon 16:03, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Corpus

message: Fortasse melius sit haec discretiva? Ecce :it:Corpo... ad minimum Latine corpus significat vasculum quo animale continetur, et aliquam rem massivam (physica). Nisi laborabam in Vis gravitatis, fortasse necessitatem distinguendi praetermiserim...--Ioscius (disp) 17:31, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

message: Est haec commentatio de corpore, vel de hominis corpore? Lemma primum suadet at prima sentia alterum...--Ioscius (disp) 17:48, 15 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  et... 

message: Corpora, sive animalium sive hominum, non possunt sic haberi, quasi sacci aut perae in quibus ponantur vitalia et alia corporis instrumenta. Secus, corpus est pars ipsius animalis aut ipsius hominis, quippe quoniam animalia et homines ex corpore et anima constant.
Romanus Felix.
thread_title:  vasculum?
Disputatio:Babylon

message: Usor anonymus in prima sententia Babylonem mutavit in Babyloniam. Reverti (a) quia eadam pagina alibi habet Babylonem (b) quia credo re vera Babylonem urbem esse, Babyloniam regionem: an recte? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Universitas Athenaea Manilensis

message: Nomen usitatum evidenter est Hispanice Ateneo de Manila et Latine Athenaeum Manilanum, sed nonne est universitas appellata Universitas Athenaea Manilensis a Papa Ioanne Paulo? Est hoc athenaeum tota universitas? vel solum universitatis pars? Vel est universitas vere athenaei pars????? IacobusAmor 14:50, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen Ateneo de Manila est certum. Etiam Hispanice ibidem utitur Anglice.  'Atheneus' sub consuetudine Hispanice refert scholam et societatem litteraram quae Anglice dicitur 'Academy'. Non ita est universitas appellata Universitas Athenaea Manilensis a Papa Ioanne Paulo. Per consuetudinem Iesutarum Philippinarum, nomen Atheneus refert ad suos institutos nam coniuncte nomine civitate. E.g. Ateneo de Davao, Ateneo de Zamboanga, Ateneo de Ilo-ilo.  --Jondel 03:13, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Stephanus Colbert

message: Quid significat "D.F.A. actor"? IacobusAmor 20:41, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: D.F.A. =?

message: D.F.A. is Doctor of Fine Arts (Artium Liberalium Doctor)
replies: text: Et quid igitur significat "Doctor of Fine Arts actor"? Ille agit actorem qui est Doctor of Fine Arts? IacobusAmor 00:32, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputatio: Stephanus Colbert

message: "Americanus" est adiectivus adhibitus ab civibus Civitatum Foederatarum Americae ut se appellent. America autem est continens comprehendens alias nationes , praecipue in America septentrionali. Malo ergo adiectivum "statiunitensis" vel alterum. --Marc mage 23:42, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Est statiunitensis re vera verbum Latinum? Non alibi in Vicipaedia inventum est. IacobusAmor 00:37, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

text: Marc, I've noticed that in many texts, you tend to put a space to the left of a comma. It looks quite odd over here. IacobusAmor 00:34, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Gratias ago vobis.

text: Apellantne se cives Mexici Mexicanos/Mexicos vel Americanos? Brasilienses? Argentinos? Dubito... --Ioscius (disp) 20:49, 22 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Francogalli se appellant europei cum loquuntur de continente. Mexici se appellant americani meridionales cum loquuntur de continente et appellant cives CFA " norteamericanos". "Americanus" est in mea opininone nomen impropium in encyclopedia internationali ut describat cives CFA , nisi agitur de eorum continente. Statiunitensis est imitatio verbi italiani. De comma, gratias ago de notitia. --Marc mage 23:20, 24 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

text: Nunquam fuit idem nomen regioni et continenti?   Similiter improprium est appellare Asianum et Africanum qui provincias Romanas Asiam et Africam incoluerunt.  Eadem ratione, non possumus dicere nomen Scipionis Africani quia etiam Aethiopes Africani sunt... appellandus est "Scipio Provincialis".

text: ...utique, America ipsa non est continens, sed "supercontinens".  Quotiens homines vocantur nomine supercontinentali? Multi se appellant Afreurasiaticos?  Rectius dicendum fuisset "Americanus" nomen improprium adhiberi sine discrimine ad Americanos Septentrionales et Americanos Meridionales. –Mucius Tever 04:23, 25 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quamquam cives CFA improprie appellantur Americani, illam vocem teneamus, dum aliquis sedulus etiam categorias illo modo nominatas mutet (e.g. :Categoria:Eruditi Americani eqs.) --Iovis Fulmen 10:25, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americanus ?
Disputatio:Bartolus a Saxoferrato

message: There are very few Google hits for Bartolus e Saxoferrato; many thousands for Bartolus de Saxoferrato. But maybe there was a good source for ... e ...? If so, let's cite it and retain this title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 27 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

message: for me it can be moved to de Saxoferrato I believe actually I took an open link already on la.wiki and e Saxoferrato it was not a conscious choice.--Massimo Macconi 19:16, 27 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I copy my answer to Thomas Ruefner that also prefers de Saxoferrato 

message: Lieber Thomas,
ich entschuldige mich zuerst dir auf Deutsch zu schreiben. Meine lateinische Kenntnisse sind aber sehr begrenzt und momentan bin ich zur Arbeit besetzt.
Es ist leider zuviel Zeit verbracht, seitdem ich diese Seite vorbereitete. Ich erinnere mich nicht mehr. Möglicherweise hatte ich diese lateinische Fassungen der Namen (Bartolo e Cino) benutzt, weil ich sie schon auf la.wiki als leerer Link (z.B in einer Indexseite) gefunden hatte. Sicher sind sie nicht das Ergebnis eines sorgfältigen Studiums.Ich glaube daher, dass deine Ratschläge sicher besser sind als meine "vorübergehende" Lösungen. Ciao --Massimo Macconi 16:06, 21 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)--
thread_title:  == Aliquae de [[Bartolus e Saxoferrato | Bartolo Saxoferrateo]] ==
Disputatio:Stephanus II

message: Papa in imagine est Papa , qui annos 752–757 regnavit, non Antipapa Stephanus II, qui obiit anno 752. Ergo, imago delenda est. IacobusAmor 12:39, 28 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: aut ad paginam Stephanus II (vel III) movendam--85.2.154.28 12:57, 28 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsus Stephanus
Disputatio:Gulielmus Brandt

message: Latinitas huius paginae non pessima mihi videtur; fortasse "Latinitatis bonae" sive "inspiciendae" existimanda sit?
84.160.71.116 19:38, 28 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)Sartorius

message: Primam sententiam enodavi. An placet? Licet revertere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:14, 9 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prima sententia
Disputatio:Ioannes Stewart

message: Anglicum nomen Jon saepe scriptum est pro Jonathan. Est nomen rectum Ionathas Stewart? IacobusAmor 22:50, 30 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego et articulum nomen forma "Ionathas" profiteri propono. Rex Latini 15:36, 24 Septembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Ioannes McCain

message: "Republican" as the name of the politcal party in the united states is different and means something different, I think, than the adjective and general "republican' as it is usually used. So I am not sure Cassell's suggested translation is appropriate for the name of the party. Can you provide any further information?--Rafaelgarcia 04:40, 31 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just reporting what Cassell's says! White's dictionary (1928) doesn't have the adjective, nor does Ainsworth's (18th century); Ainsworth's does, though, have the noun A republican, defined as 'Popularis imperii amator'. In the United States, the Republican Party was founded to support the republic (as against those who didn't); hence the name. Since a republic is 'the people's thing' (res publica), it would seem natural that an adjective referring to the people (popularis) would relate to it. The classical term popularis doesn't ordinarily seem to imply the usual modern English sense: 'commonly liked or approved'. ¶ Unfortunately here, Cassell's also defines the English word democratic as 'popularis'. Oh well. ¶ How far back does the supposed adjective republicanus go? Its absence from Ainsworth's suggests that it wasn't appropriate as a gloss for 'republican' so recently as two hundred years ago. IacobusAmor 13:03, 31 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think cassell's is correct, because in the context of todays governments democrat and republican mean the same thing: champions of government by the people, as opposed to oligarch or kings, hence "populares". Yet there is a difference between "Republican" and republican. One is the name of a party, the other a person who advocates a certain form of government. No one really expects to have the party name to mean anything in particular. What they stand for changes from election to election. --Rafaelgarcia 14:48, 31 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Is that ever true! ¶ Since we can't render Democratic Party and Republican Party by the same term (Factio Popularis), we'll probably have to allow Factio Democratica & Factio Republicana and tolerate their substantives (Is est Democraticus honestus; ea est Republicana prava). Does anybody dispute that? If so, what are the reasons? and what Latin terms would be better? IacobusAmor 16:10, 31 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Republicanus aut Popularis
Disputatio:Planetae Iovianae

message: "Jovian planet" is described at Gigas gasosus (and also on en:wiki) as a synonym of "Gas giant". Therefore, I suggest, the two pages should be combined.
I removed the interwiki links, which applied not to "Jovian planet" but to "Hot Jupiter" -- a category of extra-solar planets which the article currrently does not describe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 1 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribuenda
Disputatio:Benedictus Marcello

message: This brings up an interesting question.  Then trend on Vicipedia is not to Latinize last names.  However, why do we say Perotinus for Pérotin and Lassus for Lasso, but not Marcellus for Marcello?  What is the criterion here?  (Mind you, I'm sort of playing advocatus diaboli here.  However, it does bring up an interesting point.)  Salve, LionhardusCiampa 16:35, 1 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our general rule (see Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum) is not to Latinize last names unless there is a source for the Latin form. For medieval people, such as Perotinus, there is almost bound to be a source (because Latin was the usual written language in western Europe at that time); for Renaissance people, such as Lassus, there is likely to be a source (because many people Latinized their own names, and most reference books were in Latin). For modern people, there is seldom a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 1 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcello/Marcellus
Disputatio:Itersen

message: Unde Jtersen? Quomodo pronuntiare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:16, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quid est hoc "J"? Non recte "I"? IacobusAmor 13:33, 7 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Paginam movi VP:TNP secutus. --Ceylon 14:02, 7 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Terrae Samoanae

message: This category is meant to be equivalent to en:'s "landforms." Does Latin offer anything apter than terrae? IacobusAmor 04:24, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The interwikis at :en:landform suggest that the Romance solution is accidens geographicus.  As the study of landforms is geomorphology, some form derived from geomorphus might serve, though really I think that should mean 'earth-shaped' than 'earth-shape'.  –Mucius Tever 23:58, 7 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Derivatives of this accidere seem usually to have negative connotations. How about Formae Terrenae or Proprietates Terrenae ? IacobusAmor 18:41, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoria
Disputatio:Manuel Ponce

message: I favor the latter (cf. Ecce: virgo in utero habebit et pariet filium, et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuhel, quod est interpretatum "Nobiscum Deus.") LionhardusCiampa 00:16, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel sive Emmanu[h]el?
Disputatio:Emmanuel

message: See note on Manuel Ponce. LionhardusCiampa 00:17, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [Comment copied across from Disputatio:Manuel Constantinus Epureanu and adapted:] In general I suggest no change. The spelling you propose is used in one text as a divine name, but we're not talking about gods here. People writing ordinary Latin and naming human beings use Manuel or Emmanuel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well then how about changing the Manuel's to Emmanuel's?  I'm happy to do it. LionhardusCiampa 16:28, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Since people who write Latin actually use both spellings, it seems to me a bit unhelpful to insist on the choice Emmanuel in cases where the everyday form of someone's name is Manuel. It's as if we're saying "We know what your name should be!" Maybe better wait and see what others think? Have you checked which form is commoner in Latin writing? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:44, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Manuel isn't a Latin name at all; it is purely a Hispanic name.  Emmanuel and Emmanuhel are the only versions to appear in Latin literature.  So if we're going to change John to Jo[h]annis and Frank to Franciscus, why is Manuel any different? LionhardusCiampa 16:47, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::See my citation at Manuel I Comnenus: you can't be saying that William of Tyre isn't Latin literature? The good archbishop would never forgive you. Anyway, the Manuel in question (Manuel Comnenus) was Greek, not Spanish. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
But the above isn't relevant to whether this forename page should be at "Manuel" or at "Emmanuel". Evidently the latter, since it says that "Emmanuel" is a better Latin form and no one has disputed it. I'll move it -- I don't think this is controversial. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel sive Emmanuhel?
Disputatio:Manuel Quezon

message: See note on Manuel Ponce. LionhardusCiampa 00:17, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quippe ita est origine Emmanuhel, sed non est latine. (Sorry for my feeble attempts at latin). Of course its of the origin Emmanuhel but since it is not latin(but Hebrew), there is no need to change it, unless we use as reference the Vulgate Bible. Or if it was traditionally translated in the latin of Medieval europe, then I suppose we should change it. A similar consideration is Tomas from the Aramaic origin meaning the twin. What ever is used is fine with me.--Jondel 10:07, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel sive Emmanuhel?
Disputatio:Manuel I Comnenus

message: See note on Manuel Ponce. LionhardusCiampa 00:17, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is called Manuel in contemporary sources (I'll quote one or two this afternoon). No change, I suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

text: See now the quotation at the top of the page (the same text, as it happens, supports our heading Imperatores Constantinopolitani!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel sive Emmanuhel?
Disputatio:Manuel Constantinus Epureanu

message: See note on Manuel Ponce. LionhardusCiampa 00:17, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest no change. The spelling you suggest is used in one text as a divine name, but we're not talking about gods here. People writing normal Latin use Manuel or Emmanuel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well then how about changing the Manuel's to Emmanuel's?  I'm happy to do it. LionhardusCiampa 16:28, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel sive Emmanuhel?
Disputatio:Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica

message: I added interwiki links on the assumption that this person is the first cousin of Scipio Africanus (as is said in the first line). However, according to en:wiki, that Scipio Nasica was never censor. Maybe the abbé Lhomond slipped up here, or maybe I did? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like this Scipio is the son of that one -- Scipio Corculum, first cousin once removed of Africanus.  If so, then this article should be merged into the existing one about him, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum.  I don't find any other Cornelius Scipio in the New Pauly who was censor in the right time frame.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:43, 3 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :So apparently there exists two alternative prints of this passage of Lhomond. The other one starts the third paragraph with eiusdem filius, which would solve everything: the first two paragraphs are about Publius Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio Nasica, the third one is about Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum.  I will try to dispatch the text to their correct page and then transform this one in an disambiguation page. --Jahl de Vautban (disputatio) 08:39, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity
Disputatio:Ulterior Portus

message: I didn't see any reason for doubting Graesse on this, so I changed the footnote to make it a simple reference. "Ulterior Portus", I guess middle French "Oultreport", would explain the modern French name beautifully. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 8 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Graesse, qui mea opinione tam fide dignus non est, alium vicum, in Freto Calisii situm, designat. ThbdGrrd 08:05, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dixi "I didn't see any reason for doubting Graesse on this"; tu autem rationem bonam monstravisti! Tibi consentio: apud Graesse multi errores reperiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 28 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Stipulae Biographicae

message: Why (in all creation) is Vicipaedia alphabetizing people by their first names? E.g.:
replies: text: Ioannes Paulus Mathieu

text: Ioannes Petrus Balkenende

text: Ioannes Petrus Ricard

text: Ioannes Picco (comes Mirandulensis)

text: Ioannes Piscator

text: Ioannes Pujats

text: Ioannes Quintius Adams

text: Ioannes Reuchlin

text: Ioannes Rockefeller

text: Ioannes Rubenbauer

text: Ioannes Sandoval Íñiguez

text: Ioannes Schaffner

text: Ioannes Sphacianaces

text: Ioannes Strauss (iunior)

text: Ioannes Strauss (senex) <--?!

text: Ioannes Stuart Mill

text: Ioannes Theuninck

text: Ioannes Thiele

text: Ioannes Tillotson

text: Ioannes Tyler

text: Ioannes Ursinus de Balthasar

text: Ioannes VI
Eh? IacobusAmor 22:57, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

text: Because all these pages lack the  magic word, see this example. --UV 23:14, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I see one of mine in that sample. Of course, this category is a good place to start picking these things up! I'll do some in a few days (just off on a journey now). Meanwhile, Iacobe, don't hesitate ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetizatio
Disputatio:Aetas Surrepta

message: So, Harrissimo, you reject Cassell's definition? "Aborigines -um, m. the Aborigines, an Italian tribe from whom the Latins were said to be descended; hence original inhabitants of a country" (used thus by Cicero). Indigenae, by contrast, are merely those who were born in a place, presumably including many of the non-Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia. Also, note that these people are called Aborigines in English—not natives. It's a technical term, at least in English. IacobusAmor 01:31, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry... I don't have Cassell's and the few things I do have suggested indigena. Sorry again, I will undo the change now, Harrissimo 01:37, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: :No problem. The apology itself calls them "Indigenous" people, but the main terms of art are Aborigines and Aboriginal people. The terminology has important political implications. IacobusAmor 01:47, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Indigenae being able to mean both Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the first place. I should really think things out more carefully. Harrissimo 01:56, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
thread_title: So, Harrissimo