lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Via serica

message: "Via Sericaria" est latinizatio mea nominis Theodisci Seidenstraße (Anglice: Silk Road), quod significare puto fere viam serici transportandi. "Sericarius" est adiectivum attestatum (vide Lewis & Short), quod significat res ad sericum pertinentes, et "Via sericaria" facta est per analogiam cum "Via Salaria", quod significat fere via salis transportandi. --Fabullus 09:26, 23 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse setaria melius? Mihi quidem melius auditur, sed etiam fortasse propinqius as Seiden venit? --Iustinus 04:29, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Habes fontem pro hoc nomine? Sericarius est nomen attestatum, sed setiarius invenire non possum hoc sensu.--173.70.154.122 04:57, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Bene mones. --Iustinus 05:32, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine huius paginae 

message: There are some oddities about the map, it seems to me. Possibly it was drawn by a Somalian imperialist :) Surely the Silk Road is the one that crosses central Asia east to west, and most of the other lines on the map are irrelevant? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:17, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added better map, in Latin, which does not emphasize these other routes.--173.70.154.122 16:55, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Agreed, that's far better. Much more accurate in its detail. Thanks for finding it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 5 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De tabula geographica 

message: Attestatione omnis locutionis Via Serica nunc inventa, paginam movimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:14, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: De hac re commentum ad Disputatio Categoriae:Via Sericaria addidi. Fons mihi dubium esse videtur: an possumus corroborare? Apud Ephemeridem De via serica saeculi XXI" reperio, sed illa commentatio de alia via disserit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :But the use of nova there implies a reference to the vetus via, almost certainly the one in question: "Posthac novae fistulae construendae sunt, nova "serica via" aperienda"! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I agree, the allusion is there. And old Avitus is good, I admit, but what was Herimannus Novocomensis's source for this name? Was he led astray by that same French text that you've cited? Some French are very bad at Latin, you know. They foisted :fr:Via Agrippa on the world. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Sivus

message: Nescio an Shiva vel Siva sit melius nomen. Opiniones, amici? IacobusAmor 19:18, 26 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dico Siva (et in lemmate Śiva). Est norma nostrum ob translitterationem internationalem linguae Sanscritae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, that's fine with me. IacobusAmor 12:32, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Societas humana

message: This lemma should be merely Societas so the discussion can include societies organized by other species (e.g., ants, bees, apes), as it does in other wikis, but the lemma Societas is already taken by a disambiguation page. I'm (temporarily) going to link en: hither, and when somebody does the necessary fixes to these lemmata, we can change en:. IacobusAmor 01:48, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can move our present societas page to societas (disambiguatio) and societas humana to societas and change the lemmas/discussion thereon accordingly, with a link to societas (disambiguatio).--Rafaelgarcia 02:22, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :We could if we knew what we were doing. :) IacobusAmor 02:43, 27 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Lignum scientiae boni et mali

message: Is Princeton Academia, by any chance, the University of Princeton? You can check whether we already have the articles you want to link to by following the interwiki links from the relevant English page. If I've guessed right, look at the interwiki links on the left side of the page :en:University of Princeton. That would lead you to the Latin page under its current name. 
How does this Academia come to be the most authoritative source for the definition of the "Tree of Knowledge"? The approach seems a bit Americocentric. A neutral observer might think the book of Genesis deserves citing a good way ahead of the Princeton Academia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:24, 28 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source appears to be a lexical database managed by students & staff at Princeton University. Even if it has pertinent information to offer, it's hardly the first thing that would be mentioned in a well-shaped encyclopedia article. Compare the beginning of this article with the beginning of its counterpart in German:
replies: text: :Der Baum der Erkenntnis von Gut und Böse (hebr. עץ הדעת טוב ורע °ez had-da°at tôb wâ-râ, griech. τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ, lat. lignum sapientiae boni et mali) ist ein Baum in der Paradieserzählung des Buches Genesis der Bibel. Er befindet sich zusammen mit dem Baum des Lebens in der Mitte des Paradiesgartens (Garten Eden) (Gen 2,9 EU). Gott verbot den Menschen, von dessen Früchten zu essen (Gen 2,17 EU).

text: The biblical text, not opinions expressed on a website at Princeton, is the primary source. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:09, 24 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two queries
Disputatio:Apparatio

message: Apparatio vel apparitio?! Commentarius ambobus nominibus utitur! IacobusAmor 14:15, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Iam mense Augusto praeteriti anni de eadem re  eandem quaestionem in taberna repetivi, omnibus iterum tacentibus. Puto tempus esse

text: *primum: movendi in apparatio

text: *secundum: mutandi mutanda in pagina dicta.

text: Quem enim fugiat has duas voces non eandem rem sonare? --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:34, 17 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Industria (discretiva)

message: Oh dear. The discretiva page was forcing the title of a yet-to-be-written article on (commercial) "Industria" to be "Industria (oeconomia)"; but since some pages already have a link to it under the title "Industria," and since that will undoubtedly be the most-linked-to article among the articles sharing this name, I wanted to change its name to just plain "Industria"; but that now creates a perpetual circle with the discretiva article. Could someone fix these things so I can create the article (just plain) "Industria"? IacobusAmor 14:24, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Factum est. I deleted Industria, so you should now be able to create your article there. --Amphitrite 14:42, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias! Mille basias! IacobusAmor 15:09, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Help fix title!
Disputatio:Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis

message: I had so much I planed to add to this, but I didn't even get around to looking again until April 30. I've been busy lately, but it kinda sucks that I can't even work on my page when it makes pagina mensis! --Iustinus 00:03, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Whoa, check this out! Um... wow. Not really sure what to make of it. Perhaps I should take all those misunderstandings as a sign that I need to make my prose more clear. --Iustinus 00:21, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External mentions? 

message: Hmm, well part of the Cycle is on another wikipedia: :de:Ägypter und Amazonen. Think that counts for interwiki purposes? --Iustinus 05:53, 25 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also :de:Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros --Iustinus 05:53, 25 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Better yet, :de:Demotische Literatur#Inaros-Petubastis-Texte—too bad it's irregular at best to do an interwiki link to a subsection. --Iustinus 18:39, 30 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki
Disputatio:Ordo mercaturae mundanae

message: Pro verbo Anglico organization, est syndicatus revera optimum verbum? IacobusAmor 16:25, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Secundum fontem Latinum. --Alex1011 16:55, 2 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Abecedarium Cyrillicum

message: Hmm. The links I added take you to an article, not to a category. How is that problem fixed? IacobusAmor 13:14, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I fixed it. IacobusAmor 13:22, 3 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus
Disputatio:Sinan Architectus

message: TV, mutasti "who served the sultans A, B, and C" (qui sultanis A, B, et C commodavit) ad "whom sultans A, B, and C served" (quem sultani A, B, et C commodaverunt), so I've changed it back. Cassell's spells plus quam as two words; as does White's with plus simile, etc. Thanks for catching a couple of grammatical errors, and for finding Adrianopolis for 'Edirne' and mescita for 'mosque'. Is it mescīta or mescĭta ? IacobusAmor 16:26, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)
Indulgentiam quaero - perperam intellegi sententiam istam> Mescita cum iota brevi nomen arabicum melius repraesentaret .Tergum violinae 19:38, 5 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Quod ratio scribendi est apta: meschita seu mescīta/mescĭta?Andreas Raether (disputatio) 22:48, 22 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc
Disputatio:Divina proportio

message: The last sentence in Divina proportio#Calculatio section (in the article version 809512 form 6 May 2009):
replies: text: : Sola solutio aequationis est: ...
is FALSE — there are TWO solutions of the equation

text: \varphi^2 - \varphi - 1 = 0
One of them indeed is

text: \varphi = \frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx 1.61803\,39887\, ...
but there is another one, equal

text: 1-\varphi = \frac{1 - \sqrt{5}}{2} \approx -0.61803\,39887\, ...
CiaPan 20:29, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah! Sorry about that! I copied this equation from the English page, and I didn't realize that it said "the only positive solution is..." I'll fix it! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 20:53, 6 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim 

message: Bavarese, rogabas "Cur coniunctivus indicativo eo loco aptior est?" Nescio, sed apud historiam paginae legimus verbum subiunctivum ab usore Wiki user wiki insertum esse, scribens quidem "Latinitatem meliorem feci." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:25, 7 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: De ''utantur'' et ''utuntur''
Disputatio:Quasar

message: Care 67.40.133.239, usor ignote, hoc nomen sensi restituisti. Quid sunt sensi ? IacobusAmor 01:53, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Primi fontes ... sensi sunt; ex verbo sentio, sentire, sensi, sensum. 67.40.133.239 02:02, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, recte dicis, amice. Gratias! IacobusAmor 03:01, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensi
Disputatio:Devonia

message: Quare dicere Devonia si ipsi romani dumnonia dicebant? --(00:41, 8 Maii 2009 Usor:Ahambhavami)
replies: text: Mutato, quaeso! --Ioscius (disp) 02:45, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sed adde fontem nominis, amabo te.--Rafaelgarcia 03:10, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::William Camden, in his 1607 edition of Britannia, described Devon as being one part of an older, wider country that once included Cornwall:
[It] was in ancient time inhabited by those Britains whom Solinus called Dunmnonii … . But … the Country of this nation is at this day divided into two parts, known by later names of Cornwall and Denshire …
—William Camden, Britannia.[1]
The term Devonshire may have originated around the 8th century, when it changed from Dumnonia (Latin) to Defenascir.[3]Davies, Norman (2000). The Isles: A History. pp. 207. ISBN 0333692837.--Ahambhavami 05:38, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: I believe no name for this region is Roman. The Romans (as Camden says) called the people who lived in modern Devon and Cornwall "Dumnonii", but no actual name for the region is recorded from Roman sources.

text: I'm not sure how old the name "Dumnonia" is (maybe fairly soon after the Romans). It would be good to find an early source.

text: However, the "Dumnonii" certainly -- and "Dumnonia" maybe -- covered not just Devon but also Cornwall. Before changing "Devonia" to "Dumnonia" as the name for Devon, we ought really to find a source that confirms the Latin name of the county. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :In Asserius, De rebus gestis Alfredi (ch. 3) the form used is "Domnania". I wonder if that's the oldest source? Assuming it's genuine (which some doubt), it was written in king Alfred's lifetime. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gildas also uses the name (in the form Dannoniae or Domnaniae, genitive): he's definitely the first (Rivet & Smith, The place-names of Roman Britain p. 343). There is no Roman source, then, but at least two in early post-Roman times.

text: ::Apart from the spelling, the problem remains that early authors meant by this name not just Devon but a kingdom that included Cornwall and Devon. But we could still adopt Dumnonia (comitatus) for the county name if there are sources for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 23 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

message: Capsam hic moveo pro tempore quia paginas de comitatibus Anglicis retracto; inter comitatus geographicos, sollemnes et administrativos distinguo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:41, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hinc nunc in paginam ipsam restituo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 10 Martii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retraho pro tempore
Disputatio:Glyn Simon

message: The Latin's good, but the paragraphing is poor. To be more readable and "encyclopaedic" his life and work needs to be grouped into larger sense units.
It isn't appropriate to refer to another Wikipedia for the bibliography. In any case the bibliography at en:wiki is very unclear. I have copied it across and separated what must be sources about his life (Bibliographia) from the listing of what I guess to be his own writings (Opera). I've done my best but I might have guessed wrong, and someone who knows would be welcome to correct and improve. We ought to cite, if we can, publisher and place of publication. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 8 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicificanda - Bibliographia
Disputatio:Asterix

message: Nesciebam sententiam “Delirant isti Romani” Italice relatam “SPQR”. Gratias tibi, multum cachinnavi.

message: :Textum repetivi e Disputatio Usoris:Fabullus.
Just in case you can help, Fabulle ... An anonym has twice removed the template  from the illustration at Asterix, and, last time, left a firm message to say that no caption was needed. But we have to have a caption, and, in any case, the picture is not self-explanatory, at least to me. It seems to be of a building with a picture of Asterix and the words "De Galliër" on its exterior. The image was uploaded to Commons by a Dutch editor. So, what is the building? Why does it display these words, and why does it use an image of Asterix? If by any chance it's clear to you, maybe you could add the necessary caption! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 21 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thank you so much! Why our anonymous interpellator thinks every reader would know that this is the outside of a comics bookshop, I can't imagine. I never saw a building looking less like a bookshop. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:26, 22 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De imagine
Disputatio:Mille et una noctes

message: Google Books seems to prefer the versions with the conjunction: 'Noctes Mille et Una' (no hits without) and 'Noctium Mille et Unius' (same); there seems to have been a nineteenth-century book made called Nonnullae in opus arabicum quod inscribitur Mille et una noctes animadversiones collectae.  —Mucius Tever 22:03, 9 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before posting the article, I checked Allen & Greenough #133, whose table of cardinals & ordinals gives the forms with "et" as nonpreferred alternatives. Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, like the British–American discrepancy of "two hundred and three" vs. "two hundred three." Personally, though, I don't care either way! IacobusAmor 00:02, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :By our usual rule, we should call a book by its attested Latin name if any; if none, by its original name (Alf layla wa-layla). In this case, of course, talking simply of "a book" and "original name" may be oversimplifying ... but it's probably better to follow the rule if we can. That points to either Mille et una noctes or Noctes mille et una, the attested forms.

text: :This is statistically weak, but (simply from Myces' links) all the citations for Noctes mille et una count as one, going back to a certain Dr Pusey, while those for Mille et una noctes are more varied and include a real actual book on the subject. So I'm inclined to move to Mille et una noctes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Then by all means change it, bearing in mind that the actual book may be reflecting a British & Romance style of numbering (in opposition, say, to an American one and the preferred Roman one). IacobusAmor 12:19, 10 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Et
Disputatio:Proelium Zamense

message: Non-possui scribere Latine "sue for peace" recte. Aliqui corrigere me possuntne?
Sorry, I couldnt find a way to say "Sue for peace". Can I get some help? CeleritasSoni 23:14, 12 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Equidem dixerim pacem rogare vel pacem orare. --Neander 23:53, 12 Maii 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah! Quippe! Oportet me potuisse concludere illam rem. Multas gratias tibi ago! CeleritasSoni 23:58, 12 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid Idioms
Disputatio:F

message: Quisnam intelligit hoc lemma?--Ioscius (disp) 03:35, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego totum commentarium non intellego! IacobusAmor 03:47, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It seems F is not the only letter in such bad shape, Iacobe. Look at S, too... How'd we miss these when they were written???--Ioscius (disp) 12:18, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Eek! IacobusAmor 12:43, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::There are existing articles for each letter at A ... Z (not necessarily good articles, but better than these two!) Maybe F (littera) and S (littera) ought to become redirects? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: De pagina "F (littera)"
Disputatio:Euonymus Philiatrus

message: Censetne quis hanc Conrado Gesnero contribuendam, cui sunt nexus intervici? --Ioscius (disp) 03:40, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Credo, si nomen pseudonymum exstat, identitate admodum distincta, utile esse paginam brevem de historia nominis et de "operibus" huius auctoris ficticii habere. Dui scriptores, scilicet Gesnerus et Wolfius, huic nomini usi sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:16, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene. --Ioscius (disp) 12:16, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: merge
Disputatio Categoriae:Sodales Academiae Regiae Scientiarum Suecicae

message: The interwiki links from this category were removed today because ther pointed to the wrong society. Unfortunatey I have not found a category for the right society, not even at svwp. The interwiki links pointed at categories collecting articles regarding the swedish academy Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien (founded 1739) which, accordning to this edit, was wrong. The article Regalis Societas Scientiarum Upsaliensis describes Kungliga Vetenskaps-Societeten i Uppsala (founded 1710). I have also updated the article accordingly. Best regards --MagnusA 08:32, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Magnus.

text: I think all these people are members of the Academy, not the Society. So what we need to do in reality is to separate the article from the category, rename the category to :Categoria:Academia Regia Scientiarum Upsaliensis and then restore the category links. The name of this category is wrong anyway, so it has to be deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputatio mota ex pagina ''Disputatio Categoriae:Sodales Regalis Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis''
Disputatio:Societas Regia Scientiarum Upsaliensis

message: Haec e pagina categoriae repetivi:
replies: text: The interwiki links from this category were removed today because ther pointed to the wrong society. Unfortunatey I have not found a category for the right society, not even at svwp. The interwiki links pointed at categories collecting articles regarding the swedish academy Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien (founded 1739) which, accordning to this edit, was wrong. The article Regalis Societas Scientiarum Upsaliensis describes Kungliga Vetenskaps-Societeten i Uppsala (founded 1710). I have also updated the article accordingly. Best regards --MagnusA 08:32, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links
Disputatio:Aentius Biagi

message: Puto nomen non debere esse Aentius, sed Entius, quia illud est de Laurentio, non Lauraentio. Spero vos lecturos esse res quas hic scripsi et facturos esse modificas quas quaero (et peto venia si meum Latinum non bonum est quam credebam!). --93.35.85.53 18:20, 13 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Ego quoque idem censeo, nec non puto omnia Vicipaediae "Aentius" in "Entius" convertenda esse. Origine enim nominis considerata, non  video cur "Aentius" sit nobis dicendum. Hoc quaeso vide: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo. Si quis argumenta pro forma "Aentius" in promptu habet, ea proferat! MARCVS 10:45, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Entius" potius quam "Aentius"
Disputatio:Tibiae

message: Velim symbola ad tempus "Tibiae (apud antiquos)" nominata huc moveatur. --Neander 02:34, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Hanc sententiam "Ob hanc rem, et propter ...  conscripserint tibiam in re publica philosophorum" ego quidem non intellego. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:28, 11 Februarii 2021 (UTC)
Nec ego, mehercleǃ--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:53, 13 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sententia, quam non intellego
Disputatio:Textus Constitutionis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae in Latinum conversus

message: Inquis "'qui' est subiectum verbi 'scribant', ergo nominativus esse debet."—Ita, probe dicis, and it reads more clearly that way to native English-speakers too, and it must be right; but one keeps remembering Allen & Greenough #307c: "The antecedent may be omitted, especially if it is indefinite," with the example qui cognoscerent misit 'he sent men to reconnoitre'; which in the present case would give us the weirdness of ut auxilium sit qui de Civitatum Foederatarum Rectione Latine scribant, so there must be exceptions, in which the omission of the indefinite antecedent is not possible. The same rule appears in Woodcock's New Latin Syntax, #148: "The noun or pronoun to which the relative refers may be indefinite and unexpressed, as misit qui nuntiarent, 'he sent (men) to report'"—not misit eos qui nuntiarent, and apparently also not misit quos nuntiarent. ¶ Cicero de Sen. 10 says: Ego Q. Maximum, eum qui Tarentum recepit, dilexi. Clearly not quem Tarentum recepit. IacobusAmor 04:03, 14 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''ut auxilium sit eis, qui de Civitatum Foederatarum Rectione Latine scribant''