lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Vybiti

message: Is it a villa or a vicus?--Rafaelgarcia 20:50, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see from the spanish wiki that is an oppidum...--Rafaelgarcia 20:51, 6 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Secundum legendam nomen oppidi ab verbo Russico "выбивать" provenit
Estne bona ratio quare verbum imperfectum detur, non perfectum? Mihi quidem videtur nomen hoc ab выбить minime autem ab выбивать. --Ioscius  ∞ 12:26, 9 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  aspectus
Disputatio:Cerasus (pomum)

message: fructum aut pomum? fructum=produce,crops versus pomum=fruit,apple, fruit tree--Rafaelgarcia 03:01, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Quis latine scribentium scriptorum antiquorum pomum cerasi drupam nominavit? (Quae vox mihi magis Anglica - drupe dico - esse quam Latina videtur.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:23, 1 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Vocabulum apud antiquos nescio, sed botanistae hodierni vocabulo drupa utuntur. Apposita verba botanica in William T. Stearn, Botanical Latin: History, Grammar, Syntax, Terminology and Vocabulary, ed. 3a (Londinii: David & Charles, 1983), p. 418, sunt drupa et drupeola et drupaceus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:24, 1 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Re vera est antiquum verbum Latinum, sed ab auctoribus classicis de olivis tantum adhibitum! Carolus Linnaeus hoc verbum in descriptionem generalem cuiusdam fructuum formae usurpavit. Igitur, si "cerasus est drupa" scribimus, non Latinitate barbara, sed scientifica utimur, sicut Iacobus iam dixit. Verbum Franco-Anglicum satis rarum drupe e Latino mutuatum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 1 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  drupa
Disputatio Categoriae:Praeclari homines Ecclesiae emendationis

message: I wonder whether we could find a neater name for this? Maybe Emendatores Ecclesiae or Reformatores Ecclesiae or something like that? But I guess "praeclari" is what I would most like to avoid. If we limit the category to them, where do we put the ones who aren't famous? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dear Andrew, I understand the the present name is too long, but I believe that the German correspondent name is not wrong. If we create a category emendatores ecclesiae/ Reformatoren we could use it only for very few persons Luther, Calvin etc, but the others (Vergerio,for example) weren't strictu sensu reformators of the church, but followers--Massimo Macconi 10:13, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I see what you mean, Massimo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Still, we could drop the praeclari and make the title Homines Ecclesiae emendationis or the like. --UV 20:49, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen categoriae
Disputatio Categoriae:Monetae

message: Is moneta the best term to use? I think more often it means "mint"; the word that comes first to mind for "coin" is nummus. Maybe others don't agree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:56, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-classically Nicolaus Oresmius uses the word, I think, in the sense of "money", see moneta. --Alex1011 19:05, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, agreed, it is quite often used in that sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
I still have a problem here. I now want to create a category for "mints" (places where coins are made) and the classical term for that concept, very definitely, is moneta. Hence I would like to use "Categoria:Monetae". But in our category structure we are already using this term for "Currencies" (a concept that, as it happens, other languages treat as singular!) So, what am I to do? One way is to create "Categoria:Pecunia" for "currency" and to transfer the current members of the category to that new name; I can then correct the interwikis and re-use "Categoria:Monetae" for "mints". Would anyone like to suggest a better solution? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

text: [NB: I edited the above because the word "Pecunia" has floated into my mind, the way it does sometimes :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC) ]
replies: text: :Due to historical reasons, the latin  word for currency is the same as the word for mint, i.e. moneta. Pecunia, however, means Money, which is somewhat distinct from Currency. Different kinds of money would include cows, corn, metals, stones, currency, etc... Different kinds of currency would include usd, gbp, eur, etc.. ]

text: :If it is necessary to come up with a different term, one could use Instituta monetaria or Domus monetariae for Mints and keep Moneta for Currency, since it is harder to imagine a different term for this without misnaming or borrowing the Romance term Divisae monetariae, whose etymological origin and meaning I don't quite understand.--123.192.64.184 17:16, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Hmm, thanks, I accept then that the concepts money and currency must be kept distinct. Well, "categoria:Officinae monetariae" would be an alternative. However institutionalized, they are basically workshops, so I think officinae is better than instituta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Collegium Brooklynense

message: Bruklyniensis? Harrissimo.
replies: text: Fontibus visis, et si universitas nomen latinum caret, puto optime paginam ad Universitas Bruklyniensis movere, Harrissime.--Xaverius 23:05, 7 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Melius ... sed si "Brooklyn College", cur non Collegium Bruklyniense dicimus? Est collegium universitatis CUNY, secundum en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Tenedos

message: Removi "Insulae hodie est nomen Tenedo" quia hoc nomen ni Graecum, ni Latinum, ni Turcicum est -- ni Anglicum! -- sed fortasse Italicum: igitur non pertinet ad Vicipaediam Latinam. Nexum autem retinui.
Nomen Tenedi in historia equi lignei apud Homerum non invenio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomina
Disputatio:Flamen

message: My old dictionary says flamen is fleg-men, reflecting Greek phlego 'burn', and the office was that of a burner, one who burns something: 'the person who lights the sacrificial fires'; hence, 'priest (of a particular deity)'. Perhaps later work has been done on the etymology? IacobusAmor 13:16, 8 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pokorny (1959) gives the Proto-Indo-European as *bhlagh-men- ‘Zauberpriester’, with the Indo-Iranian brahman/brahmin as cognate.

text: Watkins (2000) gives it as *bhlād-(s)men- from a root *bhlād- ‘worship’, with brahman/brahmin from a separate root *bhraǵh-men- ‘form, ritual form.’

text: Sihler (1995) says "L flāmen ‘(high) priest’ might be cognate with Ved. bráhman- n. ‘formulation, prayer’ [...] from PIE *bhlagh(s)men- (PItal. *flaχmen or flaksmen-; the version with an *-s- would not do for the Ved. form).  But in the alternative, it has been connected with Go. blotan ‘to worship’ via PIE *bhlād(s)men-.  As a matter of principle, neighboring language groups are expected to show important similarities, which would here favor the Gmc. association; but that is balanced in this case by the observation that Ital. and InIr. share many archaic details in their religious and legal lexicons."  He states the question is "strictly speaking undecidable."

text: (Pokorny also mentions *bhlād-(s)men-, blotan, and die zahlreichen Übereinstimmungen in der religiösen Terminologie zwischen dem Italischen und Indoiranischen, so uncertainty seems to have existed for some time.  Though I don't seem to have any source relating it to the root of phlego.) —Mucius Tever 01:26, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :One wonders if the old Romans, not knowing of a root *bhlād-, but knowing the root flā-, had a folk-etymology connecting it with flare 'to blow'. They'd have been aware of the synonym flamen 'gale, breeze, blast of air'. IacobusAmor 09:57, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Dumézil has written a whole book on the subject : Flamen-brahman, Geuthner, 1935 (112p) and defended his view in several of his later books. No etymology seems completely satisfactory or quite sure, so I have nothing to add to what has just been said above. As to the connexion between the group fulgeo/flagro/flamma (with related greek phlego/phlox) and the religious title flamen  it will be perhaps the Truth in the next century.Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus 10:23, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De origine flaminum
Disputatio:Volpes marina Hedintonis

message: I have not written for the Latin Wikipedia before, so I don't understand why the only page I have attempted (with a great struggle after a 35-year absence from Latin!) has been deleted.  If plagiarism is suspected, have no fear: I also wrote the English version of the page.
replies: text: First of all, please, sign your comments using the ~~~~. On your article, it has not been deleted, it is still here. What do you exactly mean with "deleted"?--Xaverius 08:08, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok, I have just sen Massiom's comment on your page.--Xaverius 08:10, 9 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Just for my info, could the author parse for me what "Curator administrationis civilis, veniam a Guilielmo Heine petito ut volpes marina in tecto maneret concessus, dixit:" means? Also, vocabularywise: the usual idiom for 'to grant a favour' seems to be veniam dare. IacobusAmor 12:51, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parsing-question
Disputatio:Croydonia

message: I can't find Croindone on the page cited. Have I missed something? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 13 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives a 11th c. name: Croindoine, although which language this is (Middle English? Franconorman? Latin?) cannot be told from the link.--Xaverius 20:50, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hmm, well, thanks for looking, Javi. Actually it's "Croindeine"; so, anyway, we still don't know where the pagename really comes from. And, as you quite rightly add, there's nothing to say that "Croindeine" is Latin. Ah well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Moveamus?--Xaverius 21:15, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ita. Movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 13 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::There are plenty of references to "Croydonia(e)", including in a school motto "Floreat Cryondonia" (see Google Books) --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:07, 25 Augusti 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::So why not move it? I'll move it now. Thanks for the reference. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 31 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Aram Khachaturian

message: Chatschaturjan (Armenice: Խաչատրյան = Xač‘atryan; Russice: Хачатурян = Chatschaturjan [non recte Khachaturyan?]): credo melius Chatsiaturian[us] vel etiam Khatsiaturian[us]. Vide disputationem de siokolata. IacobusAmor 12:02, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Ludovicus van Beethoven

message: Here's a question that's been raised before in some other place: even were all the words perfectly grammatical & stylish, would the result be up to adult standards (in any language)? or would it belong in an encyclopedia meant for children? and how should Vicipaedia's ratings indicate the latter possibility? For example, here's an excerpt from this article: "Pater Ludovici malus erat et Ludovicum opprimebat. Volebat Ludovicum optimum pianistum et compositorem esse." Anglice: 'Ludwig's father was being bad and was crushing Ludwig. He was wanting Ludwig to be the best pianistum and composer.' How to mark texts that go on in that style? Not just -5 (too low for the grammar & vocabulary of this excerpt, which may technically approximate a -2, or even a -1): I'm asking about how to indicate the estimated utility of the content, or the audience at which the article is aimed. If such a consideration is to be caught by a single rating, this excerpt might rate a -6, though that level of Latinity seems already defined only in terms of grammar & style, not content. Should there be a separate Vicipaedia Simplex (Pro Parvulis)? IacobusAmor 13:39, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, the Latinitas ratings should reflect the Latinity only, and not other aspects of the quality of an article such as verifiability, neutral point of view, "relevance" etc. Still, I see a problem with this article in its current form: "Pater Ludovici malus erat" lacks precision and verifiability (who, if not God, can judge where a human is good or bad? ;-) ). --UV 14:30, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I also think, that Latinitas is only about the language. Other things should be discussed on disputatio or changed in the article. --Alex1011 14:12, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I really understand the problem Iacobus raises; I agree with Alex's solution. Gradually we have to upgrade the articles. Our shorter articles would still be accessible to beginners anyway -- I don't think we want a whole simple-Latin Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -5? -6?

message: Vide http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aedifico#Latin. LionhardusCiampa 18:42, 13 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aedificavit"
Disputatio:Inferi

message: I regularly confound the reflexive and non-reflexive, especially when the subordinate clauses pile up, but...
uxor sua est Proserpina = "Proserpina is her own wife" (since Proserpina is subject); 
uxor eius est Proserpina = "Proserpina is his wife" ?? 
On another issue, the familial relations of Pluto can be found under Pluto (deus), and perhaps are beside the point here.  Montivagus 15:51, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sua is an adjective here. Sua may refer to a previous person such as Pluto, typically in a main clause or previous sentence. Pluto est deus; uxor sua est Proserpina.-->Pluto is a god, Proserpina is his (Pluto's) wife. But Pluto est deus; uxor eius est Prosperpina. -->Pluto is a god; Proserpina is his (not Pluto's but some one else's) wife.--Rafaelgarcia 16:03, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Consentio, and that's what the textbooks imply, though one might well wonder about copulative sentences like this. I believe I've seen medieval texts in which the distinction between eius & suus has been lost, but it's probably best for modern writer to try to maintain it. In the case of uxor eius/sua est Proserpina, the suggestion at Bradley's Arnold #354(iv) seems to be that here it should be merely uxor est Proserpina, since there's no doubt whose wife she is. IacobusAmor 16:17, 14 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sua v. eius
Disputatio:Numerus complexus

message: propter meas emendationes auxilium peto quia mathematicam oblitus sum..--Massimo Macconi 19:07, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noli, Maxime, sollicitare. Emendabo hanc mox.--Ioscius (disp) 19:55, 15 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Haec pagina ab Usore:Toadino2 e conversione paginae it:Numero complesso aucta est. Autoribus illius paginae gratias agimus.
Tibi quoque, o Toadino2, gratias agimus!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:19, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pars paginae aucta
Disputatio:Notitia Dignitatum

message: I took out these sentences, claimed (also in es:wiki) to be from the beginning of the text. "hoc documentum rationem reddit de structura et administratione imperii Romani aetate Theodosiana. ultima redactio notitiae dignitatum a primis decenniis saeculi quinti provenit". I couldn't believe that people in the fifth century wrote about "saeculum quintum" or about "aetas Theodosiana". So I checked. These sentences are a steal (not PD!) from the newly-written introduction to the text at "Bibliotheca Augustana"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they've been stolen into Vicifons as well! Don't trust Vicifons, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initium
Disputatio:Gulielmus Howard Taft

message: Hoc est forma commentarii:
replies: text: Gulielmus Howard Taft (natus in Cincinnatopolis, Ohio die 15 Septembris 1857 - Vasingtoniae obiit die 8 Martii 1930) fuit magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem, vir publicus, vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913 et decimus dux Tribunalis Supremi (Anglice Chief Justice) ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930.
Melius:

text: Gulielmus Howard Taft (1857–1930) fuit Praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae et deinde Dux Tribunalis Supremi.

text: Taft natus est Cincinnatopoliti die 15 Septembris 1857. Factus est magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem, vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913, et decimus dux Tribunalis Supremi, ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930. Obiit Vasingtoniae die 8 Martii 1930.
The suggested form will help a stipula grow. The second paragraph might be headed "Vita," and of course it will gain subheadings as the text lengthens. It will grow drastically at the points marked by ellipses:

text: Taft natus est Cincinnatopoliti in Ohio die 15 Septembris 1857. . . . Factus est magister iuris apud Universitam Yalensem. . . . Electus est vicesimus septimus praesidens Civitatium Foederatarum Americae . . . a die 4 Martii 1909 usque ad diem 4 Martii 1913. . . . Praefectus est decimus dux Tribunali Supremo . . . . ab anno 1921 usque ad annum 1930. . . . Obiit Vasingtoniae die 8 Martii 1930. . . .
Articles should be set up with a structure designed to grow, what may be described as an open form. The current form of this article—as of many, many, many stipulas—is closed, and anyone wanting to expand it will have to do needless extra work. (Stipulas are acknowledged to be incomplete, and they shouldn't be designed so as to impede their expansion.) The form I've suggested lends itself more easily to growth. IacobusAmor 14:16, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forma commentariorum in Vicipaedia
Disputatio:Titus Manlius Torquatus

message: If this (entire) text is a quotation from the cited book, it isn't a Vicipaedia article, and it belongs elsewhere than in Vicipaedia (Vicifons?). Thus also the other texts quoted from that book. IacobusAmor 17:30, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this text is in the public domain, it might be useful material to use parts or all of it in the article. Currently, the text is identical to the text at vicifons. Remove the text and keep only a short stub and the link to vicifons? --UV 22:00, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quid est hoc commentarium?
Disputatio:Laurentius Valla

message: I do not understand because "Inter opera SUA notius est De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione" and not "Inter opera eius....". According to my Latin grammar (Gusmini, Monfroni, Romussi, Nexus, vol. 1, pag. 287, Torino 2002) you should always use eius when the adjective doesn't refer to the subject of the sentence as in this case. Actually opera isn't not the subject of the sentence. Thanks for your explanation--Massimo Macconi 19:12, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps eius is OK; I must have been thinking of Bradley's Arnold #354(ii): "Sometimes, when no ambiguity is likely to arise, suus refers in  a simple sentence to something other than the subject of the sentence. Senātum ad suam sevēritātem revocāvī. I recalled the Senate to its strictness." IacobusAmor 20:16, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: I am wondering if anybody knows where to find this famous text.Adrian Comollo 17:31, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio text? 

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 19. Lipsiae 1909, p. 998 ( hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Februario 2020
Disputatio:Malo malo malo malo

message: At school I was taught this as a macaronic, and in a different order:
replies: text: Mālo I would rather be

text: mālo in an apple tree

text: malo than a wicked boy

text: malo in adversity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quite right, Andrew. I started this thinking I had time, and it turned into I had no time. I will fix it....--Ioscius (disp) 18:03, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I'm assuming, by the by, that that has nothing to do with macaroni? --Ioscius (disp) 18:05, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Make no such assumption. An article on macaronic literature is demanded, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
I heard it as:

text: I would rather be

text: on a ship at sea,

text: than an evil man

text: in an apple tree.--Andreas 13:22, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sounds fine in English, but doesn't work as a translation of this phrase in Latin: "malo" cannot mean on a ship at sea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think it can, actually, Andrew. mālus can mean "mast" too, right? --Ioscius (disp) 12:54, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That is the explanation: a synecdoche too. So there should be one malō without a macron on the a. I like this version because it gets one more distinct meaning into the sentence, but loses the symmetry of having two long as and two short.--Andreas 13:22, 30 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Thanks, gentlemen. I live and learn :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 2 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Order
Disputatio:Rupertus Murdoch

message: The Latin inscription he has here at Worcester College due to his contribution to our library has his name fully in English, not "Rupertus" but "Rupert". Should we then move this page then to Rupert Murdoch considering that we have a source? [If you want, I'll post tomorrow thw inscription]--Xaverius 21:27, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or actually Keith Rupert Murdoch may be better?--Xaverius 18:23, 6 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Don't we usually convert "given names" to Latin, no matter which language the person uses in "real life"? Hence, we'd use Rupertus (if that's a genuine Latin form). In bibliographies, we've been more conservative, and tend to reproduce names exactly as they appear in the cited publications. IacobusAmor 18:56, 6 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes we do, but as I saw this inscription, I thought it could have counted as a source. The Queen has Latin inscriptions with her name but still keeps Elizabeth in them.--Xaverius 19:08, 6 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: Quid est fons verbi investor? Investire Anglice "to clothe, cover", ita investor Anglice "one who clothes, covers"? In lingua Anglica hanc etymologiam habemus, sed eum verbum ex sensu Italiano derivatur. Num indignum est derivare verbum Latinum e verbo Italiano quod ipsum e verbo Latino derivatum est? Et LRL habet investitore (Italice; Anglice investor) ut pecuniae collocator. --Robert.Baruch 14:35, 1 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Investor"
Disputatio:Boy Meets World

message: Mihi videtur gradus '-5' esse nimium severus.  Mutationes tamen proponere velim: pergebat pro pergerebat, Puer Occurrit Mundo pro Terrae.  Montivagus 21:03, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Euge! Montivage, tu es consultor utilis! Mutationes tuas conferam discipulae quae hoc scripsit.  Latinology 21:17, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Consentio esse nimium severum. At necesse est aliquid facere de "sitcom". Forsan interea "series" satisfaciat.--Ioscius (disp) 21:44, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Assentio. Fortasse solum gradus "maxdubium" fuit.--Rafaelgarcia 23:03, 18 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Pro revisione gratias tibi ago. Nobis placet!--Latinology 22:49, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I always thought of translating this show title while it was on the air as "Puer Mandum Convenit". Except that I'm not sure whether "convenire" can mean "to meet" in Latin. -Kedemus 07:00, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Re: "Puer Mandum Convenit."—English world is Latin mundus, not mandus. Accordingly, I've changed mandi to mundi in your article on Daylight-Saving Time. IacobusAmor 14:13, 6 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinitas