lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Dux civitatis

message: In commentario Australia, videmus:
replies: text: Dux civitatis:
replies: text: :Elizabeth II Australiae
Sed certe dux illius civitatis est eius primus minister, et regina est eius caput, ut fuit Malietoa Tanumafili II, caput civitatis Samoae? IacobusAmor 19:04, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: The concepts you're talking about correspond to our current

text: *Dux civitatis and :Categoria:Duces civitatum, Anglice Head of state

text: *Dux Gubernationis and :Categoria:Gubernatores civitatum, Anglice Head of government

text: I think we currently use caput more often for a capital city than for a top chap. What fun! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:32, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassell's says the basic sense of dux is 'guide, conductor', perhaps more applicable to a head of government than to a head of state; its second sense is 'a leader, ruler,' especially 'a military or naval commander'. Caput, in contrast, is a 'head'. The Samoan example is pertinent because the Samoans (guided by experts in English jurisprudence) chose the Samoan word ao for this person in their country, and ao specifically means 'head' (yes, as of the body, i.e. caput), not 'leader', for which their language has an otherwise handy term derived from a verb meaning 'to lead, to guide' (and thereby quite analogous with dux and ducere). In constitutional monarchies, the head of state is mostly a follower, not a leader. Maybe the contrast is OK though, insofar as it distinguishes between the 'X of the state' and the 'X of the steering'. IacobusAmor 20:02, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dux vs. Caput
Disputatio:Astronavis

message: Haec quare redirecta est? 82.36.94.228 21:38, 18 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quaestionem non intellego. Redirecta e quo titulo? vel ad quem titulum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:53, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)
E "navis spatialis" ad hoc vocabulum, partim Graecum, partim Latinum.82.36.94.228 11:32, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC) (oops)
replies: text: :A! Quaestio optima. Habemusne fontes pro "Astronavis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 19 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Et Astrum et navis sunt radices Latinae. Quoque habemus astronauta. De fontibus nescio.--Rafaelgarcia 09:17, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Secundum Lewis & Short aster et astrum sunt verba Graeca mutuata; sed, recte addis, iam habemus astronauta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Etiam Graecum est elementum 'nauta' in hoc nomine; 'ναυτης' : nauta :: 'ποιητης' : poeta. —Mucius Tever 23:59, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: :::Hodie fontem repperi pro verbo astronavis et in pagina ipsa addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: What is "dissidiat" in the first sentence of this article? None of the sources I am able to consult seem to recognize that as a valid verbal form. The apparent intent is that it is some conjugated form of the verb
    dissideo, dissidere, dissedi, dissessus
(Am I correct in assuming that?)
Toddcs (disputatio) 18:42, 4 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I tried to interpret it as “dissidet”, but then the sentence did not make sense. Therefore I  with “oritur”. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:58, 6 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :@Grufo Thank you! Toddcs (disputatio) 01:13, 6 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissidiat?
Disputatio:Sententia

message: This page needs fixing. The only grammar-related article cited here is about Latin grammar:
#Verba formant sententiam grammaticam.
but other languages have sentences too, so a general article, whose title will be merely Sententia, is needed (and then this page will need a new title). IacobusAmor 12:49, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This page
Disputatio:Cosmotheoria

message: So the word cosmotheoria dates from 1998. In what way is a worldview a theory? (Yes, of course it's from Greek θεωρία 'a looking at, a viewing'.) Should we therefore speak of a woman's view of London as her theoria Londinii? According to Cassell's, the CL words for 'point of view' are sententia and iudicium, which here might lead us to a phrase like sententia mundi or iudicium mundi. Why is cosmotheoria preferable? IacobusAmor 13:53, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Newfangled? Oh, no. Witness Jean Fernel's Cosmotheoria (1527); G.Hensel's Cosmotheoria Biblica Restaurata (1740); Andrew Baxter's (1686-1750) Matho sive Cosmotheoria Puerilis. Rather than 'Weltanschauung', "sententia mundi" translates as 'Weltgedanke, Weltansicht, Weltmeinung', nor is it given in Redmond's vocabulary (s.v. world view) which has cosmotheoria, mundi conspectus, visio, imago mundi, mundivisio. --Neander 15:29, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well then, the only attestations cited in the article shouldn't date from 1998! For reference, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionaries, both worldview & weltanschauung IN ENGLISH (the language whence their use in Cultura came from) mean 'a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world[,] esp. from a specific standpoint'. I still wonder what Cicero would have made of the concept; after all, in an era that began more than two millennia ago, the year 1527 is indeed fairly new! IacobusAmor 16:31, 20 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Can we move this to Sententina universitatis?--Jondel (disputatio) 12:26, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Or Theoria cosmi?--Jondel (disputatio) 12:28, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

text: Iacobus's explication of worldview & weltanschauung seems to me to correspond closely with "Cosmotheoria" as used in Neander's three citations, so why move? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Well if it is not considered New fangled,lets leave it then. Let us assume that other latinists would agree.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:58, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Newfangled term?

message: O care 186.127.247.32, utens ignotissime, quid significat haec imago, quam in commentario sine capitulo nuperrime ascripsisti?  IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:33, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience anonymi who add non-Latin material never look at talk pages. Better either to caption it, if you can see a relevance, or remove it, if you can't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I would like to remove this then.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:22, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, just do it, Jondel :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Done.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:34, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
FYI: A similarly anonymous source put it into the Dutch, Esperanto, French, and Spanish pages on the same subject, also today, and also without a caption. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

text: Well I am going to those pages and removing them now. --Jondel (disputatio) 22:34, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Imago
Disputatio Formulae:CFAtabula

message: I changed the map image in the template, but it still needs to be improved. Please help! --Oren neu dag 01:29, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you change the image? I chose that specific image so that all the links worked correctly. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:19, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ugggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I spent an hour making a new imagemap for the new image, and Firefox crashed and I lost it all. I'm too angry now. I'll do it another day. Unless someone else wants to--it's very easy. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 03:42, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:file:Tabula geographica civitatum CC. FF.png]]
Disputatio:Constantinus Samuel Rafinesque

message: Rafinesque is here categorized as an Auctor Latinus, but I have been unable to find any of his works which would justify the categorization; some of the titles are in Latin, but the text is in English for the most part, apart from the concise botanical descriptions, which are really a code rather than Latin writing (and, with the proper instruction, could be constructed by someone with no knowledge of Latin at all). If he actually did write one or more of his works in Latin, it would be helpful to point that out. CriticusFortuitus 13:33, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently I was wrong in assuming from the titles that some of his works were in Latin. Thanks, I'll remove the category.

text: Incidentally, I don't agree with you about botanical Latin! It may be a strange form of Latin, and it may be easier to teach than the classical form, but it is a form of Latin none the less. However, I do strongly agree that if a writer merely embeds some Latin botanical descriptions in a work in a modern language, it isn't useful to categorise that writer as an auctor Latinus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Over here, we call sentences like "mortuus est fuit studiosus" run-ons: something has gone wrong with the structure or the punctuation. IacobusAmor 13:58, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may realise, Hendricus's Latin is written in exactly the way Criticus Fortuitus describes above -- it is "a code ... constructed by someone with no knowledge of Latin at all". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Heh. (But if codes don't parse, they don't work!) IacobusAmor 18:10, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Run-ons
Disputatio:Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata

message: Could someone check the grammar of this article? I am quite sure that I made some mistakes, but cannot solve them myself right away. Thanks in advance, --Maurits 00:30, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Salve Rafaelgarcia, thank you for your corrections. Some explications:
*By "Cunti rei singularis sunt modi Naturae (sive Dei)" I meant: "All singular things are modes of Nature (or, what is the same, of God)."
replies: text: To express what you want you have to have agreement in case and gender in all three words. So Cunctae res singulares sunt modi Naturae (sive Dei).--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
*By "Modi attributis cogitaris" I meant: "Modes of the attribute thought."

text: Cogitaris is present passive indicative of cogitare, a verb, not a substantive. And attributum is a neuter second declension. So: Modi attributi quod dicitur cogitatio = modes of the attribute which is said thought. You can get rid of quod dicitur if you want.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
*I chose "perfectissimum" to express the absolute perfection (that's what Spinoza uses to prove the existence of only one substance, he has a peculiar definition of "perfection")

text: OK. I wasn't aware of the special terminology. The article should explain any special terminology.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Spinoza used some very specific technical language. E.g. substance (God or Nature) has infinite many "attributes" (among which thought and extension), which express the essence of that substance. Everything else is a mode of God, either as an idea (being expressed/perceived in the attribute thought) or as a physical thing (being expressed/perceived in the attribute extension).
The general idea in contemporary language is, that God is both a thinking and an extended thing and that all "things" and ideas which we perceive are modes of his thought (his ideas) or modes of his extension (his body, so to say).
I hope that this clarifies my intentions. Kind regards, --Maurits 02:19, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: See my comments above. I only worked through point 2.The other parts have serious errors too.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections
Disputatio:Green Day

message: Tergum: their name "Dies Viridis" was in use on an AOL messageboard in the 1990s, and was said to have been approved by them. The messageboard has disappeared, but I have a copy of the attestation on my hard drive. Their manager/owner (or whatever you want to call him) was fond of Latin, and I recall an online conversation with me in which he said he was reading Tibullus at the time. IacobusAmor 20:33, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but it's not the name they perform under or publish records under. Perhaps a note about their manager's love of Latin could be made in the article - but translating the name of a band for the sake of it is geeky and pointless imho.Tergum violinae 20:47, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :"That may be so, but it's not the name they perform under or publish records under." Is that relevant? Perhaps oldtimers will refresh our memory, but my recollection is that what people called themselves doesn't matter: if other people have spoken of them in Latin, then they've given us an attestation. We don't Latinize names, but if sources outside Vicipaedia have done so, then we accept the Latinization. IacobusAmor 23:58, 26 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Marcellus del Pilar

message: Multus imitatus est re Iosephus Rizal. Quaeso, referre anglice qua in summa traduxi.Me doleo latine.--Jondel 07:40, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrigendi:

message: Family names are normally not translated into latin specially here at this latin wikipedia.Jondel (disputatio) 13:15, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilar - Columna
Disputatio:Vera, or The Nihilists

message: annihilatores = destroyers, nec nihilist (philosophus); nihilist = nihilista, mea sententia. De ludo scaenarum autem nescio.--Rafaelgarcia 11:20, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, amice. Certe nihilismus (philosophia = :en:Nihilism) verbum nihilista gignit. IacobusAmor 11:24, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ludum scaenicum bene legi, amici, et, cum in tragoedia isti homines cupidi sint delere Imperium et sese adfirment esse acerrimos hostes omnis regis -cumque vero caedes nec theorias facient- puto eos potius tromocrates quam philosophos esse. Non probe gnosco nihilismum (philosophia), sed non est philosophica theoria in hac tragoedia. Quod autem dicere volebam verbo "annihilator" utens proprie erat quod anglice "destroyer" legitur. --Poecus 13:51, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fortasse opinio auctoris est nihilistas idem ac annihilatores esse? Est scriptum Anglice? Nihilist Anglice idem ac nihilista Latine est.--Rafaelgarcia 14:27, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Quaestiones feci. Lingua Anglica habet utrum verbum "Annihilator" ac "Nihilist"; generaliter, "Nihilist" ad philosophum tantum spectat, sed inveni Nihilismum etiam esse peculiare verbum quod Russicam politicam admotionem saeculi XIX designat. Ita est, melius erit nomina in pagina mutare. Gratias permultas vobis reddo de sententiis vestris. Errata corrige. --Poecus 15:19, 27 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Annihilatores
Disputatio:Incola

message: Definitio die 4 Decembris 2004 ab Wolfgang1018 proposita et iam exstans: "Incola . . . est persona, quae in oppido, urbe vel insula habitat." ¶ Immo, incola est [1] homo vel (secundum Ciceronem) animal vel etiam (secundum Horatium) ventus qui ubivis habitat; vel [2] (secundum Ciceronem et Livium) alienigena qui quibusdam iuribus civilibus caret. IacobusAmor 13:25, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Incola . . . est persona, quae in oppido, urbe vel insula habitat."
Disputatio:Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

message: Ehu! Praeclarae orationis prima verba nunc habemus! Bene fecisti. Inter cetera, etiam paginam de Catone Censore vidi magna cum voluptate.
Perge quo coepisti, Alexander! Vale.
--Poecus 14:15, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Poecu, quam prosperum te invenire in disputatione huius paginae! Tibi gratias reddo quia vidisti paginam de Catone Censore, quem uti scis permagni habeo!
Ave ac vale!--Alexander Gelsumis 18:42, 28 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Shouldn't this be merged into In Catilinam, at least until there's enough material to justify a separate article for each oration? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:26, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. However, a quick and dirty Google search suggests that this is a real "locutio", recently adapted for use against Berlusconi, Putin, "Hollanda" and Obama. We will need to cite at least some of those uses, if they are citable, in order to justify keeping this page. Any other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:40, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, it's an often parodied locutio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:36, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Right, it makes sense then, I guess. It definitely needs expansion though, since really only the last sentence deals with it as a locutio. We should probably have one on O tempora, o mores! too. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:00, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, indeed! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:19, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::We do now! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:55, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Macte virtute! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:06, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

text: ::I found another example, medieval this time, page 56 line 12. I'll revise the article tomorrow, I hope. 20:18, 13 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coniunctio?
Disputatio:Italia

message: Secondo me bisognerebbe cominciare a fondare un progetto:Comuni, in lingua latina, con lo scopo di inserire tutti i comuni italiani. La voce si arricchirebbe di altre 5000 voci.--93.146.91.190 14:39, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: un buon lavoro lo sta già facendo Neander, se non erro, che ha inserito moltissimi comuni--Massimo Macconi 06:23, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Et tu, Maxime; et praecipue  Nuada, cui de hac re nuper decrevimus "orbem geographicum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: :Si ma un bel progetto darebbe un impulso alla wikipedia in latino. --93.146.91.190 08:25, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: :ma quanti sarebbero disponibili a partecipare: te, Neander, io e ...
replies: text: ::Ho capito--93.146.80.192 15:57, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

text: ::scusa ho confuso Nuada e non Neander se lui è d'accordo potrei colaborare--Massimo Macconi 16:01, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
ma ci sono un sacco di casi sbagliati
thread_title: Progetto:comuni italiani
Disputatio:Ianus

message: According to Allen & Greenough #117, adjectives of one termination, necessarily including the participles, have "-īs (as well as -ēs) in the accusative plural masculine and feminine" (also, -ī in the ablative singular). A&G show the preferred form to be -īs. A&G's pertinent example is egēns, with preferred ablative singular egentī and preferred accusative plural egentīs. The most memorable example that comes to mind is of course Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis (Aen. 2.49), where ferentis is accusative plural. Why was -īs faulty in the article? Perhaps the example is nominative and, reading quickly, I was thinking it was accusative? IacobusAmor 13:52, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both interoeuntes and introeutis are correct. My point was this: why change a correct form to another, "preferred" or not (esp. in the case of a good Latinist who certainly knows what he's doing)? --Neander 14:02, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :One doesn't necessarily check to see who the author might be before making changes. IacobusAmor 14:28, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: introeuntes ~ introeuntis, etc.
Disputatio:Iustinus Martyr

message: Non est cur de Latinitate huius paginae dubitetur. -- [Anon]
replies: text: De verbis "a non christianis parentibus natus est" dubito: ("natus + a"? "non christianus"?) ... sed recte mones. Latinitas bona est. Oportet nexus addere in textu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:11, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

message: Samaria non est urbs sed provincia. Quare scripsi "in Samaria", et non "Samariae". Romanus Felix.
replies: text: Norma Latinitatis est nomen provinciae, in quo urbs quaedam iacet, casu genitivo notare: cf. "Bethleem Iudaeae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samaria 

message: Carissime Andrew Dalby, Iustinus natus est parentibus non christianis, quia parentes religionem christianam non sequebantur, non quia christianismum prorsus ignorarent. Licet christiani non essent, quandam tamen christianismi notitiam habebant ex hominibus, qui in oppido Flavia Neapoli religionem christianam sequebantur. Romanus Felix.
replies: text: "Non Christianus", idioma valde emphaticum, accipi potest! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentes non christiani
Disputatio:Gabriel D'Annunzio

message: Scripsi de vita operibusque huius hominis sed addere paginam de Volatu super Vindobonam vellem. Nunc nexum in sectione "In Bello, in Tarsatica" impono, sed pagina nondum facta! Valete.--Alexander Gelsumis 07:17, 2 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bona pagina, Alexandre, eam magni facio. Scripsisti autem "Natus Pescarae": quia in Vicipaedia iam est pagina "Aternum" de hac civitate appellata, nonne melius erit nomen mutare? Hoc facto, etiam Nexum ad civitatis paginam imponere poteris. Vale!--Poecus 07:25, 2 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Itast, Poecu. Imponendi Nexus oblitus sum, gratias ago. Ehu!--Alexander Gelsumis 07:34, 2 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

message: Praeclara dicta scripsi italicis litteris quia citationes sunt. Non oportet, quaeso, ea revertere in litteris consuetis - his usus sum ad Biographiam scribendam. Sed si rationes novas habetis, eas in pagina disputationis mea proponere quitis. Valete.--Alexander Gelsumis 13:21, 2 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litterae italicae
Disputatio:Lingua Extremadurensis

message: Lingua, simul regio cum d scribamus. Paginam movenda esse ad Linguam Extremadurensem --Xaverius 21:41, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
Incorrectum autem nomen et Extremadura et Extremadurensis. Nomen latine correctissimum Extrematura, quia ab extremum + -tura provenit, non a Durio flumine.--Frater Carmona Valviensis 21:49, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cur? Habesne fontes pro "extrematura"? Certissime permultae fontes adsunt pro "extremadura", et Hispanicae et Latinae. Etiam puto -tura non suffixum Latinum esse, sed nescio--Xaverius 21:50, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Scripta antiqua "Extrematuram" referunt, ut Strematura, cum "t". Lege hunc articulum scriptum a Pablo Gonzálvez, magistro et sapiente linguam Extrematurensem. --Frater Carmona Valviensis 22:06, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fortasse verbum Extremadura non in "extremis Durii" ortum est, sed et Extremadura et Extrematura adsunt in manuscripta Aevi Medii. Tandem in scriptis Latinis seris Extrematuram non videmus. Puto rectiorem Extremaduram quam Extrematuram esse, ita puto Extremadurensem meliorem. Nihilominus, quoque Extrematura forma verbi est, et fortasse in paginis quoque eam scribamus.--Xaverius 22:22, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

text: ::(videte hanc compilationem fontium)--Xaverius 22:25, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Frater Carmona bene miram nominis formationem observat, sed Xavierus bene id habet. Hoffmann in lexico suo iterum iterumque "Extremadura" hic Latine dat.--Rafaelgarcia 23:15, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Frater Carmona, vide scriptum Fabulli nostri de etymologiae Extremadurae: Disputatio_Usoris:Fabullus#Suffixum--Xaverius 12:50, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

message: I think "giernu < generem" should be explained, so I put a "dubsig" next to it. Is it the Latin generem "I may beget", some kind of Romance *generem from genus, or a mistake? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:20, 19 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generem
Disputatio:Iosephus Paterno

message: Care 71.57.236.31, dicis Novum Eboracum burgos septem habere, unum ex quibus Brooklyn esse; sed Novum Eboracum est una ex quinquaginta Civitatum Foederatarum Americae, non urbs. IacobusAmor 05:02, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Civitas non est urbs

message: Do we have an attestation for this name? It's got two adjectives in a row not separated by a sign for 'and'. That's why I wondered about Pennsilvaniensis Civitatis Universitas and now wonder about Civica Universitas Pennsilvaniensis (but civicus basically means 'pertaining to a citizen, civil', not 'pertaining to a state'). IacobusAmor 13:27, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Universitas Civica Pennsilvaniensis

message: Suntne Ioseph atque Iosephus nomina eadem?
replies: text: Eundem hominem idicant, Ioseph Anglice et Hebraice et interdum Latine, sed usitatissime Latine Iosephus.--Rafaelgarcia 19:12, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praenomen