lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio Categoriae:Constellationes

message: ===Overhauling this Category===
Since just about every constellation name is an ordinary Latin word or name, we are goign to need to start moving all these articles to Name (constellatio) or the like. Or, I suppose, we could put multiple articles in one page like we used to do with the planets. But as things stand, whenever I want to find out about dragons, lions, scales, telescopes or whatnot all I find is that they are "constellations of the universe." 
We should probably also change the category Sidus to Constellationes: sidus does sometimes mean constellation, but it can also be used to describe just about any heavenly body, whereas constellatio is unambiguous. Furthermore category names tend to be in the plural.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to have the Zodiac category be called Zodiaci, as Zodiacus refers to the whole zodiac (of which there is only one!), not its individual constellations. It should be changed to either Zodiacus or if we really want it to be plural Constellationes Zodiaci. I prefer the former. --Iustinus 16:35 aug 17, 2005 (UTC)
=== vide etiam ===
Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Taberna#Renaming of categories?. --UV 00:32, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ex ''Disputatio Categoriae:Sidus'' 

message: Since just about every constellation name is an ordinary Latin word or name, we are goign to need to start moving all these articles to Name (constellatio) or the like. Or, I suppose, we could put multiple articles in one page like we used to do with the planets. But as things stand, whenever I want to find out about dragons, lions, scales, telescopes or whatnot all I find is that they are "constellations of the universe." 
We should probably also change the category Sidus to Constellationes: sidus does sometimes mean constellation, but it can also be used to describe just about any heavenly body, whereas constellatio is unambiguous. Furthermore category names tend to be in the plural.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to have the Zodiac category be called Zodiaci, as Zodiacus refers to the whole zodiac (of which there is only one!), not its individual constellations. It should be changed to either Zodiacus or if we really want it to be plural Constellationes Zodiaci. I prefer the former. --Iustinus 16:35 aug 17, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhauling this Category

message: Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Taberna#Renaming of categories?. --UV 00:32, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  vide etiam
Disputatio:Iamambuxus

message: 1565: Maffeii epistula Meaco II Kal Mart (Epistulae p. 263-4): 
replies: text: Alia et familia sane frequens eorum, quos Jamambuxos vocitant, crispante ac vibrato capillo. ii res vel amissas, vel furto sublatas ita comperiunt. Statuunt ante sese puerum, hunc daemon certis evocatus carminibus occupat: ex eo deinde puero, quod aiunt cognoscere sciscitantur. Horum preces in utrumque partem multum valere creduntur. Itaque precationes eorum faustas æque dirasque pretio populus comparat. Hujvs ordinis candidati antequam admittantur, bis terve millem simul montem quendam editissimum petunt. Ibi sexagesimum diem pœnitentiæ nomine, ubi sese voluntario supplicioni aceraverint (quo ipso tempore sese illis dæmon varia specia visendum offert) quasi jam laurea donati, & in ceteram adscripti familiam, floccis quibusdam albis ornantur e collo pendentibus artisque pileolis, qui non nisi summum capitis verticem tegant. Atque his tamquam insignibus inde Japonis provincias peragrant, seque operam suam ubique venditant, adventum suum in oppida significantes pulsu catilli, quem secum circumferre singuli soliti sunt.
replies: text: :Was that really Jamabuxos sine mb in Maffey or a typo? Anyway, that's something nice to gloss wikt:山伏 with.  —Myces Tiberinus 03:06 aug 18, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That was my mistake. An hour or two ago it suddenly occured to me that I had left off the m, but I couldn't get back to the computer until now. Figures you would have spoted it. I know he spells Yamabushi two ways, but I can't find the other occurence, and at I can't offhand recall if it was Jamambuxius or Jamambuxa (as I had spelled it s.v. nanguinata). --Iustinus 03:39 aug 18, 2005 (UTC)

text: ::Whoa! I didn't realize you already had done a  wikt:山伏, complete with another quote! --Iustinus 03:41 aug 18, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A primary source for the article
Disputatio:Religiosus

message: OK, I know French uses réligieuse for nunn, but thus far all I've seen in Latin is monachus for monk and monacha/nonna for nunn. Is religiosus really used as well? I genuinely don't know. --Iustinus 03:30 aug 23, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Morgan's lexicon has, in addition to those, (frater) religiosus and (soror) religiosa; also there is sanctimonialis for nun.  I have seen religiosus used substantively before but only by User:Constantius on la.wikt (e.g. here). —Myces Tiberinus 05:48 aug 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's the generic term - monachus = monk; frater = friar; etc.  the term that refers to monks / friars / nuns collectivly is religiosus.  eg: 
religiosi in: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_01011998_ecclesia-in-urbe_lt.html
or religiosus in http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_22091998_authentic-interp_lt.html
Also in Lewis & Short under "religiosus" (b)
--Tbook 15:25 aug 23, 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks! --Iustinus 16:52 aug 23, 2005 (UTC)

message: This is first and foremost an adjective, in use way before christianity... This page is movenda in a serious way.--Ioshus (disp) 19:44, 15 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name...permaxime movenda
Disputatio:Ion

message: Quomodo in latinam vertere electric charge? Litteraturam de electromagnetismo latine scriptam nescio. --Mafrius 19:54 sep 1, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbum quod est charge de voce gallo-latina "carrica" provenit. Sed eo quod non sit Classicae Latinitatis nonnulli Neolatinistae proponere solent "onus electricum." --Iustinus 20:10 sep 1, 2005 (UTC)
Orthographia quorumdam verborum in hac scriptura non esse rectissime mihi videtur. Cur ionizare et alia verba littera z Romana rara sed non s scribuntur? Auctoritatis Anglicae linguae Civitatum Americae Unitae causa? Praeterea non intellego formam grammaticalem ionta: ea esse translitteratio e Graeca pura videtur; sed lexicon Latinae novae editio librariae editoriae vaticanae ( formavit: ion, -onis, m. Fortasse aliquis nos adiuvet in hac re?
--Cornu 12:10, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Hae ambo saepe rogantur. Ergo:

text: #De ionte, vide Disputatio Usoris:Mycēs#ionis vs iontis. Fortasse melius est -on -onis, sicut nunc pro protone neutrone etcetera accipiuntur, sed ion iontis haud figura ficta est. Invenitur in nonnullis fontibus, et re vera vox pacta est ante alias, ex ipso participio illo

text: #De -izo, equidem Lexicon Latinum Lewis & Short, versione interretiali, nobis numerat  47 verba temporalia cum suffixu -izo, 46 cum -isso (sed non omnia a fontibus graecis), et denique 37 cum -iso (Sed ex his, re vera, nullum exemplum perspicuum huius suffixus invenio, nisi unum, nempe pytiso). -izo, igitur, cum zeta, haud quaquam Americanismus est, immo, si quid omnino, Graecismus potius est! Sed omnino licet, immo decet -izo scribere, et me iudice optime ita scribitur.

text: --Iustinus 16:21, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Care 201.170.102.240, usor ignote, quid significat hoc verbum arcanum? In commentario Electron, legimus lemmata "Electron (-onis, n.), etiam electronium (-i, n.)." IacobusAmor 11:57, 26 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Electrontum,'' &c.
Disputatio:Index imperatorum Sacri Romani Imperii

message: The most common designation of the Holy Roman Empire seems to have been Sacrum Romanum Imperium (or Sanctum), frequently abbreviated SRI. Sometimes to the end of this phrase is tacked Nationis Germanica.
I don't think the emperors themselves were normally called "holy" (even though we do this in English, and apparently in Italian as well). Their usual title in Latin was Imperator Augustus, sometimes given in fuller forms, e.g. Dei gratia Romanorum imperator semper augustus.
Of course this is not exacly a handy title, from a Wikipedian point of view. The interwiki for En:Holy Roman Emperor gives some intersting idioms:  
*de: Römisch-deutscher Kaiser
*eo: Imperiestroj de la Sankta Romia Imperio
*fr: Empereur romain germanique
*it: Sacro Romano Imperatore
*wa: Djivêye des Impreus do Sint Impire Romin Djermanike
I wonder (but don't have time to research it at this particular moment) if something like "Imperator Romanum Germanicum" vel sim. ever shows up. --Iustinus 18:28 sep 3, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I am new to this small wikipedia, but it seems to be messed up, since the editors seem to neglect the categories in general ->Imperatores Romani Sancti - or does anyone see a difference between both? --Kresspahl 23:12 sep 3, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean about neglected categories. Presumably this double page was caused by a new user who didn't know how to do redirects (seems to be increasingly common lately)--there were no differences worth mentionign between the two. It is impossible for this wikipedia not to be messed up precisely because it is so small: there aren't enough experienced users to edit every article that comes down the recent changes list. --Iustinus 03:09 sep 4, 2005 (UTC)
What is correct?
* Imperatores Romani Sacri
* Imperium Romanum Sacrum
* Imperatores Sacri Imperii Romani (on Fridericus II)
* :Categoria:Imperatores Romani Sacri
* :Categoria:Imperatores Sancti Imperii Romani (on Fridericus II)
--Roland2 20:55, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

text: I know Sacrum Romanum Imperium to be correct, and I know Charlemagne was Imperator Augustus...but I don't know about holy roman emperor, sacri looks like it should be, following Sacrum Imperium...look here, not much en:Holy_Roman_Emperor.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:13, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I found in :de:Heiliges Römisches Reich Sacrum Imperium from 1157 onwards, Sacrum Romanum Imperium 1254 (elsewhere in the article it is also called Sacrum Imperium Romanum). The emperor was called Romanorum Imperator Augustus. In the late middle ages or in the early new age (15th and 16th century) then was added: Nationis Germanicae, which would then give (not explicitly mentioned) Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae. Alex1011 21:38, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sacri or Sancti?
Disputatio:Index regionum Germaniae

message: Does it make any sense to have both articles?--Kresspahl 23:21 sep 3, 2005 (UTC)
I just joined the pages technically. Some geographical names still need to be standardized. I don't want to do this alone: Megalopolis-Pomerania Citerior or Anterior? I think Citerior is more typical Latin, cf. Hispania Citerior, Gallia Cisalpina. What about Terra Sarrae? The name of the river is definitely Saravus, according to Ausonius, Mosella. Saravensis provincia is I think a good solution, but maybe also Saravi Terra? The capital is Saravipons. anything else?--Iovis Fulmen 08:09, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Apud VOX LATINA Saravia inveni. --Alex1011 20:36, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Nomen illud Sliasvig-Holsatiae ridiculum est. Scriptores neolatini saeculi sexti decimi, quorum latinitas mihi exemplo esse optimo videtur, has terras ducatus Slesvici et Holsatiae appellaverunt, ut provinciam hodiernam Slesvicum et Holsatiam nominandam esse censeam.--Irenaeus 09:27, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Potestne fieri, ut non solum nomina propria partium Germaniae adaequentur, sed etiam regiones administrativas ipsas aeque nominentur? Exempli gratia: Pro nomine 'Bundesland' pleraeque paginae habent provincia (in pagina Rhenania Septentrionalis-Vestfalia autem invenitur res publica). Sed quid de divisionibus inferioribus? Haud scio an haec sunt apta: Germania est res publica. 'Bundesland' est provincia. 'Regierungsbezirk' redditur regio administrativa.  'Kreis' est pagus. Tum restant 'Amt' (an foedus civitatum?) et 'Gemeinde' (fortasse civitas, quae iterum vicos varios habet). Quendam ordinem saltem utilem esse censeo. --Iovis Fulmen 20:49, 19 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Propono: 
*Terra foederalis - Bundesland 
*Regio scilicet administralis vel administrativa - Regierungsbezirk
*Pagus - Kreis
*Amt? Habemus etiam nunc in Germania Ämter? Ubi?
*Commune - Gemeinde, commune in Stowasser hoc sensu inveni. --Alex1011 20:36, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Habemus Ämter. FridericusRex 20:55, 11 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Si Sliasvig-Holsatia ad Slesvicum et Holsatiam movere volumus, nobis properandum est, quod iam multae paginae ad Sliasvig-Holsatia referunt. --Alex1011 20:36, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Provinciae Germanicae]]
Disputatio:Alba Longa

message: Narrant etiam in Alba Longa Ream Silvia natam esse, quae mater docetur Romuli et Remi fratrium.
--
Melius esset dicere: Narrant etiam in Alba Longa RHEAM SILVIAM natam esse, quae mater docetur Romuli et Remi FRATRUM
--
... Post hanc pugnam, quae historiam et fabulam mixit, Alba Longa decrevit et evanuit.
non "mixit" sed "miscuit"
Gratias
thread_title: Quaedam verba

message: Pauculis abhinc diebus corrigere Latinitatem huius paginae coepi, per postulationem formulae insuper. Dum hoc faciebam, coniectavi consummationem meliorem fore si totam paginam rescriberim, constitutiones componendo causa ac sinendo ut rectius fluat. Agnosco hoc consilium severius esse, sed equidem reor permultos vestrum mihi adsensuros esse. Si quid emendare corrigere mutare vultis, per favorem, me benedicente fac hoc! --Denwego (disputatio) 00:41, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Singulos citationes apud Google nominum "Castellum Gandolphi" (fonte mediaevali) et "Castellum Gandolphum" (fonte recenti) repperi. Alias citationes quaero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

text: + 4 "Castello Gandolphi" (aevo renascenti). Ergo nomen Latinum "Castellum Gandolphi" fortasse accipere licet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Castellum Gandolphi" mihi bene videtur! --Denwego (disputatio) 00:41, 29 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Res rescripta
Disputatio:Declinationes adiectivorum

message: Cur Gén. non Gen.?

message: This is not a friendly page. It needs introduction, separation, clarification and more. I removed the evil-looking standard borders, but it is still not very nice. Can someone make this into something useful, please? Daniel (☎) 11:32, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleugh! 

message: Germanice: dreiendig, zweiendig, einendig. Num verba Latina habemus? --Alex1011 20:25, 29 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trium duorum et unius finium 

message: Si quis invenit declinationem verba qua non posssunt declinari,mihi dicat !--Marc mage 22:50, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene, melius, optime; magnopere, maius, maxime; longe, longius, longissime?  ;)  —Mucius Tever 10:44, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Puto gradus comparativos non declinationes esse. Adverba non declinant quod ipse verbum non mutat--Xaverius 11:48, 30 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Haecine quaesivisti? Nequam et frugi adiectiva habentur sed non declinantur. --Fabullus 07:12, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In ima tabula : declinatio adverborum?????
Disputatio:Continens

message: Oceania continens est? Australiam nominem proprium esse credebam!
thread_title: Oceania

message: Hominem Antarcticam non occupare censeo.--84.73.35.134 12:38, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica 

message: Why is it continens terra rather than continens terrae--is that some idiomatic expression?--Rafaelgarcia 00:24, 30 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one ever answered this, but I guess the answer is this: it's "terra continens" land that contains (i.e. contains regions or peoples), plural "terrae continentes"; "continentes" now regularly used alone, omitting the "terrae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 14 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Continens terra?

message: it would be interesting to know why this article seems to accept six as the normative number of continents, seeing that seven is apparently the dominant opinion, with North America and South America each its own continent. Toddcs (disputatio) 22:09, 13 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it accept six? The version I'm reading doesn't give a number in the introduction, says that (apart from prehistory) the count varies between four and seven, and explains why it does so, in text and with the help of a list. The list, taken by itself, offers six or seven.

text: Geographical fact would give two very big land masses, two fairly big, and any number you choose of smaller ones that you wish to define as "terra continens". But this is a rather a question of individual Latin names with established usage as names of "terrae continentes". Since the Latin term "America" was used without subdivision in many early sources, but "Europa", "Asia" and "Africa" have practically always been distinguished in Latin sources, the sources seem to me to gravitate towards "six or seven". If there's a better way to do this, please attempt it or propose it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 14 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :The introduction could do with some rewriting, incidentally. Tthe third sentence evidently means that islands are treated in geopolitics as a part of any currently favoured continent ... but doesn't really say so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 14 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Dictum factum, but today's addition (ex en) is quick & dirty, so feel free to revise it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:35, 14 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six continents
Disputatio:Stella

message: When I wrote Relativitas generalis I came up with the name foramen nigrum for black hole, but reading Astrum I saw that somebody else wrote it as gurges niger, which, in my humble opinion, is really nice and more poetic - my dictionary translates gurges as raging abyss :-)
Looking at my only source of neo-latin  I saw that David Morgan does not have a word for black hole, so I would like to ask somebody that has other resources of neo latin to check what is the usual translation adopted. Thanks in advance. --Mafrius 17:32 sep 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ego quidem ipse gurges niger proposui; nam in dictionariis nondum invenitur.  W. Bohmhammel, Kal. Oct. 2005
I've also seen fossa nigra and hiatus niger --Iustinus 20:41 oct 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hiatus et fossa ad res longiores, non ad res rotundas pertinent; inde mihi male sonant. W. B.
thread_title: Black hole
Disputatio:Lyra

message: Hic articulus tantum de Lyra "astronomica" erat. Addidi sensum generalem et symbolicum, quo mihi utile necessariumque apparuit. Sed nexus ad articulos in linguas vulgares tantum de lyra astronomica sunt. Necesse est fortasse duos articulos separatos creare. Nescio. --Y.E. Clément 15:54 sep 19, 2005 (UTC)
Problema cito solutum, secundum analogiam articuli "Cygnus".--Y.E. Clément 17:12 sep 19, 2005 (UTC)

message: Friends, I apologize for writing in English instead of Latin. A "lyre" can also mean a set/collection/anthology of pieces of music or of poems.  Is that not correct?  (I have, for instance, an old moldy book from the mid 1800s called "Lyra Catholica."  The music itself is pretty moldy as well; however, it is in any case a collection of church music.) LionhardusCiampa 12:51, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "lyra" makes a nice book title, but the word doesn't really mean "collection of poems". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's not defined in Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as anything other than a musical instrument (Lyra), with a synonymical nod toward Lyra (constellatio). IacobusAmor 13:26, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Meanings

message: Estne fides, fidium sive fides, fidis nomen alterum pro lyra ipsa? — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam Wikienciclopedista scripsit (Wikienciclopedista • conlationes) .
replies: text: Sane est! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:53, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen alterum
Disputatio:Foedus Pactum Helveticum

message: Hi everyone!
There is already one article called Foedus Pactum. Unfortunatelly it was not categorized (Me paenitet! I added the picture but forgot to categorize it.) and there were no links pointing to it, so our friend Y.E. Clément (who is doing a great job in this vicipaedia, by the way)  could not know that there was an article about it already. What should we do? Delete one of them or let them both exist? --Mafrius 12:02 sep 26, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely shouldn't have both articles. We need to decide which name is better (I vote for the one with the "Helveticum" because it's unambiguous; "Foedus Pactum" alone could be any federal charter), merge anything useful from the other article to the one being kept, and then leave a redirect. This is what I recently did with Lingua Islandensis and Lingua Islandiensis. --Angr/loquere 12:22 sep 26, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Propter ista inconventientia me paenitet! Sorry! Fusionem articulorum iam paravi, secundum propositum "Angr", id est addidi (melius) caput de articulo "Foedus Pactum" et nexus ad alias Wikipediae versiones. (Ego creavi etiam "Romancice" versionem!) Si Mafrio acceptabile est, insertio "redirect" in articulo "Foedus Pactum" bonam optionem esset. (Sin, ego possum fusionem in anteriore articulo parare.). --Y.E. Clément 13:11 sep 26, 2005 (UTC)
Profecto! Mihi acceptabile est! Sed autem opinionem exquirere meam opus non est, fac id quod tibi melius videtur, quia opus tuum apud vicipaediam vere est bonum! --Mafrius 13:27 sep 26, 2005 (UTC)

message: Fortasse in loco sectionis "Verba Cartae" intitulatae volumus potius alligere ad paginam apud Vicifontem iam exstantem, nempe: Foedus Pactum --Iustinus 18:28 sep 27, 2005 (UTC)
Id feci --Denwid 20:52, 11 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verba Chartae 

message: Ave. Paginae nomen melius esse «Pactum foederis helvetici» mihi videtur. Vanosilo 14.39, 19 Octobris 2015 (CEST)
replies: text: Hmm, foedus pactum est possibile (cf. "pacto iam foedere provinciarum" Ciceronis), et in Vicifonte reperitur, sed non in ipsa charta, et dubito utrum in melioribus fontibus adhibeatur. Versio tua mihi placet; etiam conferre possumus alias Vicipaedias: Theodisce "Bundesbrief", Francogallice "Pacte fédéral", Italiane "Patto eterno confederale", Rhaetice "Patg federal". Lesgles (disputatio) 22:02, 19 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renominatio
Disputatio:Christophorus Columbus

message: Cristòfol Colom el seu nom real... Pero que pena, ¿no os dais cuenta los bilbenystas el ridiculo que haceis?
replies: text: Bilbenystas? No entiendo... que significa? Hasta Viquipedia lo llama Cristòfor Colom...--Ioshus (disp) 04:23, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Puto optime in Latine loquntur ne isti nos intellegant. Magnum iurgium de origine Columbi est. Aliqui putant Columbum Catalaunum esse, alii putant Genuanum esse. Bilbenystae sunt gentes Hispanae quae omnem in lingua Catalaunica volunt, ita Catalainitatem vindicant. Hoc (iurga de re publica et de politica) evenit cotidie apud es:wikipediam. Ergo haec est causa ut vicipaediam malim.--Xaverius 08:43, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Consentio! Credo etiam nobis necesse est plura scribere de Columbo: pagina quam habemus brevissima est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 9 Maii 2007 (UTC)

message: Credebat in Indiam adveniatur et adrogebat pro regis Hispaniae = 'He was believing so that he might arrive for himself in India and he was claiming for of [sic] the King of Spain'. IacobusAmor 22:10, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me paenitet. Credo nunc melior est! DaithíÓ 22:22, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, now that I know what you're trying to say, I've said it. (Other solutions are possible.) IacobusAmor 00:23, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quid dicis?