lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Archipelagus

message: Necesse est historiam rescribere, ut videtur. Secundum Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology reperiuntur
# saec. XIII verbum Italicum arcipelago (fortasse ex alteratione verbi Egeopelago ortum) ad mare Aegaeum nuncupandum
# paulo postea archipelagus (idem verbum Latine versum, eodem sensu). Huius usus fontem pulcherrimum saec. XV citabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
# tardius archipelagus ad maria multas insulas continentia nuncupanda. Huius usus fontem saec. XVII citavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Partim rescripsi, sed formam Egeopelago putativam omisi. ODEE de origine verborum Italicorum fontem haud optimum esse censeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De sensu priori et antiquitate verbi 

message: Pro archipelago verbo Anglico, Cassell's Anglice monet: "use phrase, perhaps Vergil's freta consita terris." Verbum a vocabulario Traupmaniano abest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:47, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Freta consita terris" is nice and metrical, though perhaps not typical encyclopedia language :) For the islands (rather than the sea containing them) I sometimes say "insularum catena". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Me too, and evidence shows that I've used scare quotes (and oh, bother; that's a non stipula). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, fixed in both respects. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: In dictionariis recentioribus
Disputatio:Topologia

message: I think "topologia algebraica" is fine, but I admit I made up "topologia copiarum punctorum."  I don't think there's going to be an existing Latin name because the concept was only identified in the 20th century.  It'll do for the moment, but if we want an article about it we may want to settle on a good name first.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:22, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Point-set topology" and "algebraic topology"
Disputatio:Topologia algebraica

message: Topologists will recognize "multiplex" = "manifold," "grex fundamentalis" = "fundamental group," and "homotopia" = "homotopy."  The first is a Latin word that has the same sense as at least one sense of the English word;  the Romance languages use "variété" (Fr.), but in English a "variety" is a different kind of mathematical object, also called "variété" in French -- it seems simpler not to use the same name for two different things, if I'm going to make up terminology!  "Grex fundamentalis" is simply a calque using our existing word "grex" for "group";  we also use "caterva," and I wouldn't object to "caterva fundamentalis" either.  "Homotopia" is English, back-formed to Greek, turned into Latin;  all the other European languages I can find in Wikipedia seem to have done the same thing.  Since this is 20th-c. mathematics, I wouldn't expect to find actual extra-Vicipaedian sources for these terms, which is why I took the liberty of inventing them.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:42, 10 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Following a Latin lemma that you have invented, you can place the formula  (I'm sure you knew this). Thus you come clean as it were, and other Vicipaedians can still try to verify your term or to replace it with one that they have found in an external source.

text: In the body of the article, no rule constrains you, except the essential one: readers of Latin require to understand what you have written. I'm confident that your choices are good :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :For 'manifold', Traupman has varius, but Cassell's has both varius and multiplex, so no "Convertimus" is needed for that word. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:12, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources for names
Disputatio:Erinaceus europaeus

message: Haereo, utrum recte dicatur Longitudo corporis est fere 16—26 centimetra. Sono latino probabiliore esse mi videtur: Corpus longitudine fere 16—26 centimetrorum est. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:56, 20 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  de longitudine
Disputatio Categoriae:Hortus Kewensis

message: N.B.Bentham, G., et J. D. Hooker. 1865. Genera Plantarum: Ad exemplaria imprimis in herbariis Kewensibus servata definita. Londinii: Lovell Reeve &c.
thread_title: Lemma: Hortus Kewensis

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Augustalia

message: dele "constiuit" et adde "constituit"
Hykso (disputatio) 18:02, 31 Augusti 2017 (UTC)Hykso

message: Puto Romae temporalem historiam rectius constitutioni suae (ab Urbe condita) referendam esse quam Christi nativitati.
Deinde :      anno 723 a.U.c.
potius quam : anno 30 a.Ch.n.
Hykso (disputatio) 00:50, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)Hykso
replies: text: Tales designationes certe addere licet, sed oportet aeram communem retinere ut lectores omnes intellegentur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporis referentia  

message: "Augustalia" propono, nomen rarius in fontibus antiquis visum, sed simplex. Alibi legimus "ludos Augustales". Fons "feriarum Augusti" non repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentimus! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:59, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ego quoque! Neander (disputatio) 11:24, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gratias ago ambobus. Movi igitur ... Sed, fontes cito inspectis, pagina iam partim rescripta, nescio an argumentum principale accipere debemus, e Vicipaedia Anglica ut videtur demptum, quae Anglophoni ex Italica hauserat, et hodie in multis paginis interretialibus verbis similibus legendum. Cras revenio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:32, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Sponsio atheistae

message: Sigur, titulum Atheism: A Philosophical Justification convertens, mutasti excusatio in argumentatio, dicens "I doubt that Martin merely wished to 'excuse' atheists"—sed Cassells nobis ait "justification, purgatio, excusatio" et Traupman nobis ait "justification s excusatio." Praeterea, excusing atheists—offering a defense of their position—seems to be exactly what the sponsio atheistae is trying to do. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:37, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Both your English and your Latin are quite obviously better than mine, so I won't argue if you fail to be convinced.  But here is my thinking: First, what does "excusatio" mean? I double-checked, of course, because in Latin even more than in other languages, one needs to beware of false friends, but "excuso" really appears to mean "to excuse" (ex-cuso - to free from a charge (causa); to be compared to the opposite action: ac-cuso).  The bottom line here is that the "causa" to be freed from is always implied to be something bad (why would one want to be freed from it otherwise?). As to "justification", it can of course mean exactly the same thing (as "justified" by its etymology: iustus+facio), but it seems to me that it can have a more neutral meaning in English, e.g. one could "justify" the theory of relativity (while there is nothing morally bad or good about that theory, it can only be right or wrong) - and of course, in my other use of the word, etymology can only be right or wrong as well. Therefore, "justification" can also simply be understood as giving reasons for a position.

text: If you put yourself in the shoes of an atheist who sets out to play in Blaise Pascal's league for a second now, would you countenance the idea that atheism is something prima facie bad that needs an excuse? Obviously not.  You would consider evident that atheists are the good guys, just as much as Pascal must have considered evident that Christians are the good guys. Granted, you are trying to convince people who are not yet convinced of that, but to do that you certainly would not give them an unfair advantage by conceding something that you consider erroneous.

text: Thus, the only sense I can make of "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" is the one that corresponds to "Theory of Relativity: A Cosmological Justification".  And I don't see that "excusatio" renders that (although there may be better than "argumentatio", I don't know that). Sigur (disputatio) 16:21, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :No time for discourse today, but the other possibility that comes to mind here is apologia. (There's also defensio.) Maybe other English-speakers will offer suggestions. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:52, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nothing against "apologia" from my side. Sigur (disputatio) 18:25, 28 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Excusatio?
Disputatio:Pingue

message: Re: "In lingua Latina classica distinguuntur pingue 'liquor crassus'": sed pingue, opinabile vocabulum classicum, non invenitur in indice apud Perseum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:37, 15 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide sub verbo "pinguis": "Subst.: pingue , is, n., fat, grease". Lesgles (disputatio) 18:15, 15 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, OK! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:03, 15 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulum
Disputatio:Anaga

message: De: "Urbes occupavit hodie: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, San Cristóbal de La Laguna."
replies: text: Certe his urbibus sunt nomina Latina? Similiter multae ex rebus hodie collatis ab 87.223.93.175‎, utente ignoto? Praeterea, "Anaga (regno)" (titulus commentarii) et nomina similia emendari debent? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomina
Disputatio Categoriae:Historia Sinarum antiquarum

message: I think this would be "History of ancient Chinese women" (very interesting topic). I think that "Sinae", as an ethnonym re-used as the name of a country, would be masculine. Heaven knows if I'm right ... at least, I don't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If Sinae is 'China' (and why wouldn't it be feminine?), then wouldn't it be appropriate here? The English category is "History of ancient China," but its CommuniaCat title is "Ancient Chinese history."  (Go figure!) The adjectives Sericus and Sinensis and Sinicus open up (too) many possibilities, as does Sina = 'China' and Sinae = 'China', not to mention Seres (pl.) 'China'. ¶ You may be hoping for the English category "Ancient Chinese women"!!! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:18, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Beneharo

message: Care  87.223.129.162 et 87.223.93.175, utens ignote, Latinitatem notavimus. Quid exempli gratia significat haec locutio?
replies: text: Et accepit Hispani insula expugnaverant.
Anglice fortasse significat "And the island received [something]; the Spaniards captured [something]." (The accepit can go only with insula, and the Hispani can go only with expugnaverunt.) This makes no sense, and you've used similarly strange formulas in other recent articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:39, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
------
What it means is: That Beneharo accepted the Spanish conquest of the island. In all the Latin articles of these Guanche kings he speaks of this, of the kings who fought against the Spanish conquerors and the kings who peacefully accepted the conquest.
Adjoña, Añaterve, Beneharo and Pelinor accepted the conquest peacefully.
Acaimo, Bencomo, Pelicar, Romen and Tegueste II did not accept it and war with the Spaniards.
Greetings.--87.223.177.29 08:22, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinitas

message: The source cited in the footnote is in Spanish. Fine. In our footnote the Spanish title is followed by the words "Trad. Spa." and a translation into Italian. That translation doesn't seem useful to Vicipaedia and should be deleted, I suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 15 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly have it deleted. I am reading the English and Spanish to create the new latin article. The English wiki article seems lacking.  --Jondel (disputatio) 04:53, 16 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Certainly, sir. I have had it deleted. But you've put it back again :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
I will remove it.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:48, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 

message: Salve Xavier at aliis. With the former (I ) meant to express:
replies: text: which at first, the kings including Beneharo had been resisting and finally accepted.
The second seems exclude a phrase a phrase which the anonymous author originally wanted to express, that the invasion was accepted. Anyway I understand the second as:

text: and the king Beneharo himself, the first who resisted against the Spaniards.
Aren't we missing other things as well.
----Jondel (disputatio) 11:15, 25 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "quod primum reges includens Beneharo resistebant at demum invasionem pace acceperunt." vs. "et ipse rex Beneharo fuit primus qui contra Hispanos pugnavit. "
Disputatio:Angiportum

message: De definitione: "Angiportum sive angiportus, est semita angusta inter duos ordines aedium sive vicos." ¶ Cassell's more or less agrees with that, but the definition given here seems to describe an alley, not a dead-end (Francice cul-de-sac), to which the article is linked. ¶ The lemma & definition don't seem to be supported by the footnote, which doesn't give the page on which the term & its definition may be found. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:26, 30 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd try to solve that last problem, but I can't. In the latest, 3rd edition of Smith's dictionary the word appears neither under an alphabetical entry of its own, nor in the general index.

text: Well, the definition in the Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees well enough with ours, so I have substituted a reference to that. (No reason not to reinstate Smith's as well if anyone can find the relevant text.) I think you are right that "alley" would be a better interwiki link. The equivalent French word might be venelle, but there is surely no need for a reference to French or English in our text: narrow lanes and alleys are found in big cities the world over. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 30 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thumb|right|Vicus urbanus Jilin
replies: text: :Wanting to understand the name of this commons image I was going to use at Jilin, I find that the Chinese for side-street or alley is :en:hutong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:04, 1 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio et fons
Disputatio:Tao te kim

message: I think we should move this. By my interpretation, we would move it to the Chinese title if there had not been a Latin translation. But there has been -- a manuscript written c. 1721 by Jean-François Noëlas, published in 2008 by Claudia von Collani and others. Its title is Tao te kim, or, in full, Liber sinicus, Tao te kim inscriptus, in Latinum idioma versus. Details are
* Catalogue entry including part title in Latin
* Story of manuscript and research
See also the title page which I have just uploaded to Commons. I suggest (but a bit hesitantly) that our pagename should therefore be Tao te kim, which is the published Latin title; compare, for example, Y-king. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 1 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Libri deuterocanonici

message: The whole text of this article: " ". Have we read that right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:59, 7 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Iacobus, it's good that you watch over this articles! The article is in the works. Perhaps I can have a full sentence within the week. Keep up the good work! --Jondel (disputatio) 06:40, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :There is now a five-word sentence. "Deuterocanonica", assuming it's neuter plural, should have a plural verb. A closer translation of the English pagename would be "libri deuterocanonici" (which would also want a plural verb).

text: :Contrary to the claim in this sentence, it's a question whether the books to which this word applies are of the Bible, or not of the Bible. That question, to which different believers give different answers, is the only reason why the word exists. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
To remove confusion, perhaps we should move the lemma to  "Libri deuterocanonici". The future article would be a translation of the corresponding English.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:11, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

text: I think that move would be a good idea :)

text: The sentence is better now, but (as you may already realise) it's even more complicated. Protestants generally don't accept these books as canonical, and Protestant Bibles often exclude them. However, you can't say everything in the first sentence! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
Great let's move it! I will try to have a sufficient passage by the end of the week. The best things ussually require steady moderate effort. Your patience is highly appreciated. --Jondel (disputatio) 23:40, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

text: It wasn't moved, so I've done that now. There isn't much visible text yet :) I don't know why some words are struck out. But the article is still evidently in progress. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 26 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the move Andrew. The strike out is to alllow seeing the progress.  A significant amount of text was recently inserted.--Jondel (disputatio) 20:19, 26 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagina
Disputatio:Fazii

message: An haec commentatio de rebus veris agit, nescio. Oportet ad minimum fontem citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A, bene. Fontem repperi ego. Delevi igitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De qua re?
Disputatio:Athenae Classicae

message: The whole text of this article: " ". Have we read that right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:49, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Iacobus, the article is still in progress.--Jondel (disputatio) 23:01, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
I now made some additions. I will try to have a sufficient passage by the end of the week. The best things ussually require steady moderate effort. Your patience is highly appreciated. --Jondel (disputatio) 23:40, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagina
Disputatio:Vasa Scubae

message: Not sure what "vasa" is meant to suggest. Note that there is a Latin word "scaphandrum" (see Google) which can be used for a diving outfit, and note also that the French Wikipedia page linked to this one is headed :fr:Scaphandre autonome. Maybe a useful hint? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vasa (pl.) = 'equipment'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:37, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hunc commentarium iam habemus (quamquam non stipula)? Vide definitionem in commentario Scuba: "Scuba est apparatus respiratorius. Homo portans scubam potest natare longe sub aqua." [IacobusAmor again?]
replies: text: ::The above comments were marked as minor, so I didn't notice them till now. Yes, I see now how "vasa" could be the mot juste: I hadn't realised its senses stretched so far. Gratias tibi ago.

text: ::Were you suggesting that the pages be merged, Iacobe? Scuba is quite a long non-stipula, and was detached from the interwiki series by a bot on a technicality (NB: the 10,000 is involved here), so a merger might be a very good solution. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 10 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Sclopetatio

message: As with at least two other articles, the entire text of this article is " ". When readers go to an article in Vicipaedia, they're probably expecting to find words in it. For that reason, empty articles—and articles that are obviously not stipulas, whether marked "In progressu" or "Tiro" or not—might benefit from being deleted from the mainspace. Each user's private (so to speak) space is ample for articles in progress, as are hard drives and other offline locations. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:14, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Iacobe. I'm guiltily aware myself of having once or twice gone off to bed leaving an article "in progressu" showing no more than a lemma and an infobox. That won't do, really, and a completely invisible article won't do either. As you rightly say, we can easily use userspace to develop articles until they are more-or-less stipulas, and in userspace we can add text in whatever language we choose. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Maybe some potential contributors don't know how to create pages in their own namespaces. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I wonder. I go to my userpage and type (e.g.) "/Sclopetatio" into the address line of the browser, straight after my username. (Use _ to replace the space character.) There are other ways, no doubt.

text: ::An advantage is that it is really easy to move the page from userspace into mainspace when you're ready. Don't tell anyone I said this, but if you do the same thing on en:wiki you evade the attentions of the New Page Patrollers (not always the most understanding of people). Your moved page will not be technically new, so it won't appear in their lists. Believe it or not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thank you for your advice Andrew, I will be minimizing my use of the 'in progressu' formula and do my best to start articles with at least 2 to 3 sentences. --Jondel (disputatio) 12:54, 15 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::OK, Jondel. no problem. Just to clarify, I think the "In progressu" tag is very handy, but it's best if there is at least something for the reader to read. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 15 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
A sentence was added. I will be checking the other articles and will have at least 1 sentence by the end of the  week.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:03, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Text
Disputatio:Chaos

message: FYI: 98.179.187.232‎'s changes deleted for false attributions: (1) for adjectives attested with chaos, L&S cite ingens and inane and caecum, with no indication that magnum is a necessary & obligatory part of the concept and therefore the lemma; and (2) magnom isn't a standard Latin word and, contrary to the proposed new text, doesn't seem to be listed in L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:04, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting
Disputatio:Coelium

message: Coelium Cilium Peucetium non est. Cilium Peucetium in veritate est Caeliam (Barium).
Peuceti incolae Peucetiae sunt. Incolae Coelii sunt Messapicos. Ergo istus nomen vocis est Coelium, enim Plinius in libro, Historiae naturalis libri XXXVII, scribebat: "Ab Hydrunte, Soletum desertum, deinde fratuertium. Portus Tarentinus statio Miltopae: Lupia, Balesium, Coelium, Brundisium".Mfran22 (disputatio) 17:31, 11 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad quaestionem de nomine vocis [[Cilium Peucetium]]
Disputatio:Promptuarium iconum (Rovillius)

message: Utilitas additionis, quam in pagina hoc tempore celavi, nescio: est enim miscellaneus librarii saec. XIX catalogus. Promptuarium iconum fortasse in catalogo enumeratur, sed quomodo verificare? Si recte iudicavi, melius erit additionem delere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:40, 13 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
Recte iudicabas, mi Andrea. Delevi. Quod si catalogum Anglice scriptum addere cupis optimam bibliographiam habes quae et longas descriptiones et locationes in multis bibliothecis adfert :
-C.E. Dekesel, Bibliotheca nummaria : bibliography of 16th century numismatic books : illustrated and annotated catalogue,  London : Spink, 1997
vel catalogum bibliothecae collegii in Harvard :
-Ruth Mortimer, Catalogue of books and manuscripts  / Harvard college library, Department of printing and graphic arts. Part I, French 16th books, Harvard Univ. Press, 1964 (in quo Promptuarium nostrum describitur). 
Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 14:02, 31 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliographia