lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Solanum melongena

message: [Verba e summario emendationis Iacobi Amor citata:]
Where do we go to find a descriptively botanical article on the genus & species?
replies: text: Haec pagina est de specie quae simpliciter melongena, binomine Solanum melongena appellatur. Equidem addidi quae volui de historia et etymologia (quae mihi valde cordi sunt). Tu, Iacobe, aut quisquis velit, adde quae scias et addere velis de aspectibus botanicis et gastronomicis. Aliter scribendum est de genere Solanorum. --Fabullus 15:29, 30 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haec pagina ut videtur (in Categoria:Cibus) est de esculentá plantae parte, sed non iam habemus commentarium de Solano melongena ipso. IacobusAmor 20:19, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Haec pagina (ut mihi videtur) coniungere potest (ut pleraeque faciunt paginae aliis linguis conscriptae) èt rem botanicam èt rem culinariam. Nulla est causa (ut mihi videtur) haec duo seiungere. --Fabullus 20:32, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

message: De nomine Sanscrito vātiṅgaṇa paulum dubito, an re vera sensum flatus collectoris umquam habuerit. Manfred Mayrhofer (Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, III. Band [Heidelberg: Winter, 2001], p465) hanc vocem dicit ad viatrices ("Kulturwortsippe für die „Eier-Pflanze”") pertinere cum bhaṇṭākī (quam vocem III 362 non-Indoeuropaeam, fortasse e Dravidicis linguis oriundam, esse putat). Sint ut sunt, significatio 'flatus collector' nominis q.e. vātiṅgaṇa mihi quidem videtur etymologiá quádam populari niti, quippe cum vāta- ventum significet. --Neander 20:11, 15 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum hanc paginam scribebam nomina Latina et transmissio Persico-Arabica praecipue mihi intererant. De lingua Sanscrita nihil novi - transscripsi tantum quae alibi in interrete inveni. Corrige vel rescribe quae corrigenda vel rescribenda tibi videntur! --Fabullus 10:16, 16 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De etymologia
Disputatio:Dam

message: For the record, out of more than 20 some entries on the :en:Dam (disambiguation) page at en, this usage is listed last. The actual page is at :en:Decametre... --Ioscius (disp) 17:52, 30 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. It should be a disambig. I think the user who created the page was just systematically going through all the metric unit abbreviations, and didn't stop to look for ambiguities. There are probably many more.--Rafaelgarcia 19:19, 30 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Aha, beat me to it. Thanks, Rafael. --Ioscius (disp) 05:09, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think it was UV who turned it into disambig.:)--Rafaelgarcia 12:45, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: disambig?
Disputatio:Massa

message: We have Pondus et Massa. --Rolandus 20:56, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If keeping the bots unmixed up is the important thing. Why don't we make redirect pages pondus (#REDIRECT Pondus et Massa) and massa (#REDIRECT Pondus et Massa) with links to the corresponding english pages :en:weight and :en:mass? There is no reason I can see why Vicipaedia needs separate pages for these two closely associated concepts.--Rafaelgarcia 18:42, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I fear this will not work for the bots:

text: :* weight → pondus → pondus et massa → weight ... ok

text: :* mass → massa → pondus et massa → mass? ... but the Latin page already links back to weight, so in fact mass leads to a Latin page which links back to weight

text: :--Rolandus 19:42, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Just to be clear, the idea I had in mind is that massa would separately link back to :en:mass and also to Pondus et Massa via a redirect. Just to be clear, I take it this would confuse the bots?--Rafaelgarcia 20:01, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I am just guessing, but the idea might be, to find pairs of pages which are linked to each other. So the question will be, to what English page our pondus et massa - red, because it is Pondus et Massa - should link. If we choose "weight", it will be ok for "the list". However, how should someone know why we decided to use "weight" and not "massa"? Why should he not change this? Moreover, I think these two terms deserve individual pages. At least on the long run. --Rolandus 20:19, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I think we should divide Pondus et Massa once and for all into two separate pages Pondus and Massa. In modern physics weight and mass are two different things and I don't see why this shouldn't be the same in 'modern' Latin! Such a division would also solve all the problems with interwiki-links. --Fabullus 11:19, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied discussion from Rolandus' 1000 paginae desiderata
Disputatio:Universitas Brigham Young

message: Nunc Universitas Bricamensis Iungensis. Adhibet hoc nomen universitas ipsa? Melior Universitas Brigham Young? IacobusAmor
replies: text: Melior. Vrad 23:33, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yeah, in general Universities named after people with muli-part names seem to be in the genitive, no the adjectival form. --Iustinus 01:48, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vidi Universitas et habuit "Universitas Brooklynensis", "Universitas Bostoniensis", "Universitas Brunensis" sed "Universitas Brigham Young" melior. Vrad 04:52, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Vrad, tabulam meliorem si petis, nomina universitatum Latina decreto adoptata. --Iustinus 08:01, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Pro tempore, ut nomen paullo melius praebeamus, ad Universitas Brigham Young moveo. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::OK. Vrad 17:02, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:Creditum

message: In Cassell's legimus:
replies: text: :"credit . . . as commercial [technical term] fides." Etiam: "crēdo . . . of money, to lend . . . hence absol., to lend . . . often in partic. perf.: pecunia credita or res creditae, loans, Cic.; also n. of partic. as subst. creditum -i: Sall. Liv."
Ergo, creditum ut videtur recte est 'loan', sed fides vere est 'credit'! IacobusAmor 22:33, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Aliae sententiae utiles in Cassell's:
replies: text: :debt, aes alienum: to get into —, aes alienum contrahere; to be in —, in aere alieno esse, obaeratum esse; a general cancellation of —s, tabulae novae.

text: :debtor, debitor, obaeratus.

text: :debit, v. to — a thing to a person, homini rem expensam ferre. IacobusAmor 22:43, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Loan (not debt or credit) is precisely what the article is about. Aes alienum is the classical term almost exclusively used for debt, rather than loan, but literally it means "another's money" or "another's copper coin", whereas debitum means "what is owed", which may be money, a duty, property, or something else. In particular, debitum is used in Justinian's Institute's for "debt" in the general sense. In particular the debt (debitum or aes alienum) may exceed the money actually borrowed (creditum) because of the interest charged (foenus or usura). For credit card I used "Tabella creditaria"  = "loaning card" because when the consumer uses it the bank lends him the money used to pay for the goods. This is distinguised from a "Tabella debitaria" whereby the consumer directly owes the seller funds that are to be drawn directly from a bank account. --Rafaelgarcia 23:31, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:Calefactio globalis

message: Calefactio mundialis Calefactio Telluris
replies: text: Mundialis has the double issue of not being attested in that sense in ancient literature and of referring to the whole world rather than just our planet. Maybe Calefactio terrae?--Ceylon 15:56, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good point. I put Calefactio telluris since we usually use that for the Planet Earth.--Rafaelgarcia 16:09, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Rolandus' 1000 paginae

message: Fortasse Calefactio orbis terrarum? Non atmosphera sola caleficitur sed et terrae et maria. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: sed orbis terrarum = verbatim "circle of lands", quod mea sententia non complectit maria nec aerem; calefactio telluris quoque non servit quod tellus cunctus frigidescit cum nucleus frigidescit. Ergo scientifice, puto melius dictum est calefactio globalis. (quamquam, hoc dicendo, neolatino adiectivo utimur)--Rafaelgarcia 15:24, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Calefactio mundi? Rather than trying to translate 'global' directly is possibly a distraction. AlexTiefling 14:02, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The primary meaning of  in this substantive sense is the universe and the heavens, which again is not precisely accurate (the universe is cooling); second is the world, the earth, which for the reason given above is not accurate either (the earth's core and most of its mass is cooling); finally the primary meaning is "wordly instruments, toiletry, dress" which doesn't fit at all.--Rafaelgarcia 14:11, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::For such a modern concept, the modern word globalis might indeed be apt; it would certainly be transparent to nonnative speakers of Latin! IacobusAmor 14:34, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I believe Cicero would have said "calefactio caeli". But if this isn't professional enough, then I'd vote for "calefactio globalis". --Neander 18:13, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::If it were just a meteorological phenomenon, maybe Cicero's caeli would be best, but don't other sciences come into play? Anyway, Vicipaedia has already been using the word globalis, as in Special:Preferences, for example. IacobusAmor 19:08, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Oetsius

message: Vicimedia Communia non continat has imagines. Non sunt imagines liberae. - Golradir 20:16, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

message: So, Iustine, mollis glacialis is 'glacier'? Cassell's didn't have a word for 'glacier', so I translated it simply as 'ice'. Cassell's doesn't have a Latin noun mollis either. You weren't trying for moles, -is 'a shapeless mass', were you? IacobusAmor 05:14, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was. Had I meant mollis "soft" I would surely have said "molli" ;) Mollis glacialis is, I think, Berard's coining, or at any rate it's conventiculum Latin. --Iustinus 05:23, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : Moles glacialis seems good enough. BTW, Pitkäranta gives "glaciarium", an obvious back-formation. --Neander 10:35, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Thanks, that makes sense too. Maybe we should start that article just as an excuse to list those sources? Though as usual for the case of Stephanus, I would probably end up citing Vita Nostra which is still published only unofficially. --Iustinus 16:04, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Glacier

message: Should we really be saying (with en:) that he was found "in a glacier"? According to the definition in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, an essential trait of a glacier is that it be moving, but wasn't Oetzi found where he fell?—which means he didn't move with a glacier, so he can't have been in a glacier? So just plain 'ice' might have been a better term? ¶ And why didn't the old Romans have a word for 'glacier'? They certainly knew about the alps, which some famous Romans actually saw. Did they just use a word for 'ice'? or what? IacobusAmor 13:14, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, how exactly do we know he was found exactly where he fell? My guess, though, would be that this is simply an illustration of the term "glacial pace." In any case I am willing to give en's choice of wording the benefit of the doubt. They surely have a least as many pedants there as here. --Iustinus 16:04, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think the idea is that if he'd been in the glacier (as would happen, for example, if he'd fallen into a crevasse, or the movement of the ice had swept him up), then his remains would likely have been crushed and spread far & wide, never to be reunited. ¶ In any case, one asks again: why didn't the old Romans have a word for 'glacier'? Or, perhaps from a more correct perspective: why should we assume that whatever the old Romans called a glacier isn't good enough for us? IacobusAmor 17:44, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I don't know that glaciers are ever as such described (c.f. lava). If we find a locus classicus, I'm guessing it would use just glacies. But "glacier" is a scientific terminus technicus. You know, like Canis lupus :p --Iustinus 19:48, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was he really "in a glacier"?
Disputatio:Lingua Hebraica

message: hebrew's name in hebrew is עברית (Ivrit) not צברית (Tsibrit, wich dos'nt have any meaning). I changed it....
replies: text: In the table should it not be derivata est to agree with litterula? 82.36.94.228 22:09, 2 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Derivata est  Anglice = 'was diverted', sed 'was derived' usitate = deducta est. IacobusAmor 13:45, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Salvete,
De alphabeto Hebraeo paullo in spatio meo scripsi, sed pagina “Abecedarium Hebraicum” bis deleta est, ergo dubito. Quid obstat? --Anedia (disputatio) 17:10, 2 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetum 

message: Unfortunately my Latin isn't nearly good enough to know how to begin to edit this, but it should be noted that the history of reviving Hebrew as a secular literary language began in Muslim Spain, in a time when many Jews were writing in Arabic and wanted to return to writing Hebrew. This involved writing a lot of poetry but also translating the works of Aristotle and many others into Hebrew. The Ashkenazim avoided using Hebrew for secular purposes, but the Sephardim did so much more readily. Ashkenazim began to write secular works in Hebrew during the Haskallah (Jewish Enlightenment), and followed a formula largely developed by the Sephardim including Maimonides, which had already greatly influenced Ashkenazi religious works. Then this language became a spoken language in the modern state of Israel, with a great deal of negotiation between "purist" forms (similar to the Ciceronian Latin insisted upon by Latinists) and the forms that were then in use.
So, I think this is much more specific than saying simply that "nonnulli" Jews avoided Hebrew on account of the sanctity of Hebrew. פֿינצטערניש (disputatio) 12:37, 27 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern history
Disputatio:Caravaggio (pellicula)

message: Care 87.30.37.22, usor ignote, mutasti inlustres ad illustres. In Cassell's legimus verbum inlustris, -e. O Vicipaediani eruditi, utra harum formarum est melior? et cur? IacobusAmor 15:00, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustres ~ Inlustres
Disputatio:Ars rhetorica

message: Why isn't the title of this article merely Rhetorica or Rhetorice? For English 'rhetoric', Cassell's gives "rhetorica, rhetorice (Quint.), ars dicendi, bene dicendi scientia (Quint.)"—but not ars rhetorica. IacobusAmor 19:16, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ars rhetorica seems OK, pace Cassell. It is the usual Latin title for Aristotle's work on the subject, and also the title of a current journal about rhetoric. It gets nearly 20,000 Google hits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 4 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :All the more reason to accommodate rhetoric in an article Rhetorica and leave Aristotle and the journal to their own devices! Entia sicut paginae distinguentes non sunt multiplicanda! IacobusAmor 14:41, 4 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen commentarii
Disputatio:Terry Nation

message: If we are into latinising forenames, is not Theodoricus the proper form?
replies: text: Terentius. --Iustinus 17:10, 4 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : Only if assuming Terry is short for Terence! If it is a name in its own right, it is cognatye with French Thierry which is from Theodoricus not Terentius, puto te inventurum esse
replies: text: :: Terry = Thierry is not something I would have thought of. But it seems to be repeated in other sources. --Iustinus 02:51, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Depends what sources, maybe. The people who write books about first names are not bound by verifiability constraints, so they are not reliable sources (I think). I would have said we need evidence that someone before us, writing Latin, has converted Terry to Theodoricus. Otherwise, he should stay at Terry. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name?
Disputatio:Anaxagoras

message: Video te, Neander, Parmenidis nomen declinationi primae attribuere. Meminisse me puto (quod nunc non citationibus confirmare possum) Romanos nomina propria Graeca in –es exeuntia plerumque tertiae attribuere declinationi, etsi linguâ Graecâ sunt declinationis primae. Sic, ut memimi, Cicero scribit Euripidis, Euripidem et Euripide, et sic Parmenidis nomen quoque declinandum videtur. De hac re plura scripsi in pagina mea nondum perfecta de declinatione Latina nominum Graecorum. --Fabullus 16:15, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Parmenides obliquis casibus declinatus apud antiquos perraro inveniri videtur. Equidem apud Apuleium (de dogmate Platonis 1.3) formam legi "Parmenidae", ex qua declinationem conclusi. At nunc video Censorinum (de die natali 4) forma "Parmenide" usum esse, ex quo declinatio tertia concludi potest. Licet res paullulum anceps sit, fortasse commendatius est Censorinum sequi. Nam, ut dicis, declinatio Euripidis certissimum praebet exemplar. Ceterum, facere nequeo, quin paginam tuam laudem! --Neander 19:44, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Declinatio Parmenidis
Disputatio:Gordonus Ramsay

message: Credo nos Gordonum (vide Gordonus Brown) accipere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Video Ramsay unicum membrum esse novae categoriae "ostentores". Ostentor, quatenus intelligam, significat Anglice "Charlatan"! Tergum violinae 22:46, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absit sententia! Id in mente non habui ... Verbum cum significatione "[television] presenter" volui invenire. Quid proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:26, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse; TV program host--convivator televisificus; TV announcer--nuntius televisificus; TV advertiser--ostentator televisificus;  TV seller--auctor televisificus; TV personality -- actor televisificus;--Rafaelgarcia 12:21, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fortasse praeco, -onis. Vocabulum presenter ('qui offert') est Anglicum, sed consuetum vocabulum Americanum est announcer ('qui nuntiat'). IacobusAmor 13:26, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sine claritate scripsi. Descriptionem volo invenire non pro announcer (fortasse "nuntius"?) sed pro personality, qui sese praebet et promovet vel qui se promovendum offert. De mulieribus iam habemus :Categoria:Ostentatrices; igitur de hominibus :Categoria:Ostentatores proposui. Sed incertus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Secundum , et exponens et expositor possunt 'presenter' significare. Harrissimo 13:28, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC).
replies: text: :::::Secundum Cassell's, 'celebrity' (verbum 'personality' simile) est vir insignis. IacobusAmor 13:39, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ostentor
Disputatio:Shawn Johnson

message: The scores in gymnastics are decimal numerals with thousandths, not large numbers with digit grouping. Therefore a space should not be used. I believe that when scores are posted in competition a period (.) is used, but in keeping with Latin Wikipedia style I used comments instead. --Jchthys 01:33, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't know. Vicipaedia really should use decimal points not commas, rather than accept both, as is presently done since it is confusing. --Rafaelgarcia 01:52, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :This issue has probably been discussed in Taberna or elsewhere in Vicipaedia. ¶ De: "Don't change the commas in the scores to spaces. They are in fact decimal numerals (thousandths), not thousands." Over here in America, the commas require them be read as thousands: 15,792 is obviously fifteen thousand seven hundred ninety-two. In contrast, decimal points were used by the clocks at the Chinese Olympics, weren't they? IacobusAmor 02:53, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It's discussed in the Disputatio Vicipaediae:De orthographia, possibly also elsewhere. We were discussing which standard to adopt. At the time, I didn't care which one would be adopted. As many people voted for commas as for points. So we couldn't decide.  Aftewards, I forget who pointed out that programming languages all use decimal points rather than commas. Over time that convinced me we should go with points.--Rafaelgarcia 03:05, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::For the record: the Chinese, English, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Vietnamese articles on this subject use the decimal point; only the Portuguese article uses the comma. (Articles on this subject in other languages don't use pertinent numbers.) Clearly the decimal point, not the decimal comma, is the world's preferred style here. IacobusAmor 13:26, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Typography for decimals

message: Pro William Whitaker's Words, gymnastica, non gymnasta, verbum pro anglicum gymnast est. Ubi reperis gymnasta? --Jchthys 21:59, 8 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cui loqueris nescio :) Gymnasta est forma alternativa verbi gymnastes (id quod tu ipse ab initio scripsisti). Sed alibi (vide Disputatio:Nadia Comaneci) Mucius Tever opinionem dedit gymnasten[/gymnastam] sensum paulisper differentem habere.

text: De ea re ego, cum categoriam creavi, verbo "Gymnastici" (pl.) usus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gymnasta aut gymnastica?
Disputatio:Ryan Lochte

message: In this article, I used the word ampitheatrum to denote center as in "Georgia Tech Aquatic Center". Is there a better word? --Jchthys 00:48, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may been discussed somewhere. Some contributors, working backward from European languages, have tried centrum, but it may not have survived editing; the article Centrum (regio Franciae) is still extant, though. IacobusAmor 01:48, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Center" (building) in Latin? 

message: I used metrum in place of the English yard where the latter would be more accurate. Should I put some sort of conversion in?
replies: text: Cassell's glosses 'yard' as tres pedes and 'a yard long or wide' as tripedalis. IacobusAmor 01:48, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tres pedes is what Morgan cites as well...--Rafaelgarcia 01:51, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin for "yard" (~ 1 metrum)?
Disputatio:Prospectus Montanus (California)

message: Cur est Prospectus Montis melius nomen quam Prospectus Montanus? IacobusAmor 12:38, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Prospectus non ipse est montanus. Urbs est in valli. Potes videre montes. --Ornil 04:33, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Urbs parva est. Fontem nominis invenire non possum. Iuvate!. --Ornil 05:05, 10 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons nominis
Disputatio:Georgius Gershwin

message: Andrew, why did you cut categoria "Musici Civitatum Foederatarum" from this biography? Gershwin was a musician: he gave public performances on the piano. Recordings of some of his performances are available. He even made piano rolls! IacobusAmor 17:32, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Iacobe. I explained why I did this on my disputatio page, but I agree it wasn't a Good Thing. I have now revised the category structure a bit and have restored the missing category to this page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoria:Musici Civitatum Foederatarum
Disputatio:Iudas Iscariotes

message: Vulgata (secundum editionem meam) Latine praebet "Iudas/Iudam Scarioth" (nom., acc.; Matth. 26.14; Marc. 3.19, Luc. 6.16, 22.3) "Iudas Scariotis" (nom.; Marc. 14.10)  "Iudam/Iudae Simonis Scariotis" (acc./dat. + gen.; Joh. 6.71, 13.2, 13.26). Hoffmann habet "Judas Iscariothes". Nos, quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:26, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine