lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Ballatio

message: Verum est Smith et alios lexicographos pro verbo Anglico "ballet" "pantomimus" dicere. Sed nemo, nisi nos, "pantomimus ballationis"; nemo, nisi nos, "saltatio scaenica". Si "pantomimus" simpliciter reiciendum sit (quia aliae res eodem verbo indicantur), atque si verbum recentius "ballatio" accipiendum sit, cur non simpliciter "ballatio" dicimus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Enim vero! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:30, 23 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

text: Non, quaeso quam possimus, fontes sequamur quam no simpliciter sit.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:27, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fontem pro verbo simplici "Ballatio" iam in pagina citavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sumus encyclopedi. Pro vulgo sermoneque referre possumus ballatio sed more encyclopedia, esse debet formalis et fontem sequens. --Jondel (disputatio) 13:29, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ita. Ergo necesse est movere, quia fontem pro "pantomimus ballationis" non habemus. An fontem pro "ballatio", quem citavi, accipis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Possimus movere ad ballatio ut adduces fasque esse opinaris,o Andreas,tamen, minime licet intelligetur quod est genus pantomimus et saltatio ab categoria vel aliqua verbis in re. Etiam, reliquerene possimus aliqua 'nota bene' ut in Traupman, verbum est pantomimus? Licet me mutem et parem pro motura re tua. Nunc occupatissimus hodie sum sed mox paraturus sum in 2 aut 3 diebus.   --Jondel (disputatio) 01:24, 25 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Veniam mihi datis gratias vobis ago. Merus duam lineam cum 'Nota bene' addidi. Tamen quos magis faciam emendatum nescio similis dicamque iam parata satis esse rem movendam ad lemma 'Ballatio' .  --Jondel (disputatio) 14:06, 26 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Latifundium

message: Nonne hae abbreviationes nimis breves sunt? Ad acronyma anglica assimiles mihi parent. Quid censebunt alii Vicipaediani?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:54, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mos vicipaedianus est scribere "a.C.n." et "p.C.n." (non "aCn" et "pCn"). Vide etiam commentarium cui inscriptio est Aera Vulgaris. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:00, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: aCn/pCn
Disputatio Categoriae:Greges comoedici

message: OK, sed comicus multo plures locos allatos in L&S habet quam comoedicus (et comoedus). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:43, 7 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The English :en:Category:Comedy troupes may help to justify this formulation. (I didn't check it before making this category, but have just found it.) It isn't "Comic troupes". This is a category for artists involved with a certain genre of performance -- comedy -- and that needs to be clear to the reader from its name if possible. "Grex" does not help (unlike "troupe") because greges are groups of all kinds, not even limited to human, certainly not limited to performers. So the idea of performance needs to shine out clearly from the other word. I probably thought then, and I think now, that it shines out more unambiguously from "comoedicus" than it does from "comicus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 8 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comoedici?
Disputatio:Paedia

message: I have a feeling the Latinity still wants improving. I can't understand it and therefore can't try to improve it. But I did check the spelling of the lemma in the late-classical source cited in the footnote, and it's OK.
I'm not yet convinced that there is a reason for keeping this article: it seems like a dictionary entry for a Greek loanword for which the real Latin would be educatio. But I'm willing to be convinced :) If the aim is to write about ancient Greek education, maybe a more explicit lemma such as "Educatio Graeca antiqua" would be better? "Paedia" as a Latin word is, after all, very rare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 9 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see it. "Refers to the educating of an exemplary burgher of a polis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 9 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
It is about the education of the ideal citizen in Ancient Greece. I would like to translate from the English wikipedia.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:59, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

text: OK, good luck!

text: The ordinary word for citizen is "civis". "Municeps" is not a good alternative here, I'd say, because a "municipium" is a Roman thing, not a Greek thing.

text: In the context of Greek philosophy (which is where the notion of "ideal" was invented) the Latin adjective "idealis" might be better than "exemplaris" (both are rare words). Someone else might have a better suggestion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :For the noun 'ideal' Traupman gives only exemplar ; for the adjective only perfectus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks. "Exemplaris" probably works better, then. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Jondel, for your sense of English 'refer', Cassell's gives dicere + acc. and spectare +acc. or ad. ; Traupman gives attingere + acc. and (if it's a playful reference) alludere + dat. or ad. Classical referre is apparently a frequent word, with quite a few subtly different meanings, but it doesn't ordinarily mean 'to mention'; see L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:39, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you Andrew and Iacobus. To Iacobus, you know we have to get the 'feel' of what the author really wants to say (whether it actually written/said or not.  e.g. dicere? to say? ). Else we're just plugging in words from the dictionary.(I work as an interpreter in real life). It is great that you mention referre doesn't ordinarily mean to mention. I don't have my Traupman now but I thinking attingere seems great but I see you improved this part already. Alludere seems to involve metaphors(basing on the English allude).  --Jondel (disputatio) 13:58, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Based on ludere 'to play'! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 10 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinitas; lemma
Disputatio:Viseria

message: Num telescopium vis dicere? Nam in Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis lego vocabulo telescopium id, quod lingua italiana binocolo nuncupatur, significari (i. e. lingua theodisca Fernglas). -Bavarese (disputatio) 10:04, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Traupman: binoculars = binoculares (pl.). Binocularibus usitate est actio telescopica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:23, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :The article turns out to be about visors, not binoculars: the photo bearing the caption "Visus nocturnus" is therefore misleading and is being deleted. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 30 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

message: It's basically a "face mask," which might have an obvious Latin conversion. Merriam-Webster says the English visor reflects Old French vis 'face' (and is accordingly related to visage). Surely mediaeval writers produced a Latin name for the part of mediaeval armour that in English is called a visor? Whatever it is would seem apt for "face mask." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:13, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, they did. Found it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 30 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Visor
Disputatio:Televistrum

message: The word televistrum is suggested by Tuomo PekkanenSee: John Edwards Multilingualism: Understanding Linguistic Diversity.  --Grufo (disputatio) 14:11, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone—perhaps one of our northern European friends with an appropriate lexicon handy—quote Pekkanen directly, so the argument doesn't rely on Edwards's allegation. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum by Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta (2006) has televisorium and televistrum. Neander (disputatio) 16:48, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)  
As in rasum (< rado) + -trum > rastrum, here we would have visum (< video) + -trum > vistrum.  Televisorium would be possible in theory, but would be perceived as less classical. Moreover, the problem of televisorium is that we could keep the adjective televisorius as "of the televistrum", as gladiatorius means "of the gladiator(es)". I would always follow this pattern:
replies: text: ::*nouns: arator, aratrix, aratrum; adj: aratorius -a -um

text: ::*nouns: rasor (an improbable "cutter man"), rastrix (an improbable "cutter woman"), rastrum (a "cutter object"); adj: rasorius -a -um (of the cutter stuff – this word brought to the italian rasoio)

text: ::*etc.

text: ::The rule is: -tus > -tor (-toris), -trix (-tricis), -trum (-tri); but: -sus > -sor (-soris), -strix (-stricis), -strum (-stri). --Grufo (disputatio) 14:11, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I wrote (instrumentum) televisorium for enphasizing the possible function of adjective of televisorius, -a, -um (until we ourselves don't destroy this possibility). See: Disputatio:Televisio
In the definition, I've added two sources from Egger via Morgan's list, but instrumentum televisificum could become a third lemma if one were wanted. The weight of the evidence—two dictionaries (one European, one North American) to one—still favors televisorium as the first lemma (despite the title), but I haven't changed the title since consensus hasn't been reached and more discussion is needed. ¶ The text (with the footnotes omitted) doesn't yet have enough characters or "aliquid maius" to qualify as a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:35, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

text: The point is that we should stop thinking about latin as an abstract and static language. It evolved during time. If the TV set had been inventend before the 1st century BC it would have been probably called televistrum, if it had been invented in the 4rd century AD it would have been probably called (instrumentum) televisorium, since the suffix -rum would gradually lose its productivity. So, an important question regarding our sources is: which latin do they speak? And which latin do we want? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:43, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

message: Surely Television (a process or medium) and Television set (an object) should be separate articles? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:23, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate articles

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio Categoriae:Programmata televisiva 1977

message: In this case we need the whole series of categories to agree, so that adding them to future pages can be semi-automatic. Moving just one of the series is no help (yet). So, do others agree with Grufo that "Programmata televisiva" is a better name? If so, we can move all the rest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 14 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The weight of the evidence outside Vicipaedia (as adduced in various disputations), as well as the longstanding tradition within Vicipaedia, favors televisificus. A new friend, who has contributed no new articles but has emerged from the ether to remark on a set of television-related terms (and then changed the texts of several articles to fit his view), raises interesting points in favor of televisivus. There's a big difference between "either of these terms is OK" (e.g., televisorium & televistrum and televisificus & televisivus) and "only one of these terms is OK, and it must be the only one used in Vicipaedia," which appears to be our new friend's thesis. Where do other authorities stand on this matter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:19, 14 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Many of those authorities have now been cited at Disputatio:Televisio. They seem to be strongly weighted numerically in favour of "televisificus". Against that majority, my personal preference for the shortest word bearing the necessary meaning (thus perhaps "... televisiva ...") has very little weight :) At present I'm inclined to move this category back to "... televisifica ...". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 14 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine categoriarum
Disputatio:Horomazes

message: Nonne Horomazen (-es -ae) esse debet, ut apud Platonem Plutarchumque? Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 22:36, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Certe. Tibi licet paginam movere fontesque in nota subiuncta citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:25, 8 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Esperantica directo

message: The only way that Esperantica directo, the lemma, can make sense in Latin is if directo is an adverb, giving a title englishable perhaps as Esperanto Directly. Is that what's intended? The more usual English idiom would use an adjective: Esperanto Direct (see TreasuryDirect). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic autem lingua Anglica non relevat :) Movi quia Esperantica directo est titulus versionis Latinae recentissime editae. Sententiam eodem modo intellego quo et tu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Musica Arabica

message: I reverted a large addition of text which appeared to be machine translation, not really Latin. Anyone who wants to look at it and retrieve useful material is encouraged to do so -- see the article history. The machine turned Arabic numerals into Roman numerals, so they would have to be turned back again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 23 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted
Disputatio:Ballets russes

message: Hmm. Contra :fr:Ballets russes (inscriptionem Francicam hodiernam), res ipsa tempore suo se, ut videtur, Ballets Russes et Ballet Russe [de Monte Carlo] (non Ballets russes et Ballet russe) appellare solebat. Vide hic (anno 1914) et hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:05, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Minusculae sunt norma in titulis Francogallicis (et erant norma, ut mihi videtur, praeter praeconia mercatoria). Sed vero in hoc titulo maiuscula illo tempore fortasse erat communior (Google Ngrams). Non mihi est magnae curae; si mutare vis, muta! Lesgles (disputatio) 20:40, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Scythae

message: Vide definitionem a quodam Sturanos praeditam:
replies: text: Scythae, p. 115 (Graece Σκύθαι) fuere TurcusCahill, Patricia A. Unto the breach: martial formations, historical trauma, and the early modern stage (2008), Oxford University Press, sf. 45 gentes antiquae. . . .
Hic fons alter, Cahill 2008, est liber Elizabethano Angliae theatro dicatus, haud certe opus historiam antiquam tractans. Confer definitionem quam nunc suppeditavimus, plerumque ex vicipaedia Anglica conversam:
Scythae, p. 115. (Graece Σκύθης, Σκύθοι), etiam Scythoi, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, et Askuzai appellati, fuerunt magnus nomadum Iranicorum grex,.....Sinor 1990:97: "All contemporary historians, archeologists and linguists are agreed that since the Scythian and Sarmatian tribes were of the Iranian linguistic group." qui, apud scriptas nationum litteratarum quae circa eos antiquitate habitabant memorias, magnis regionibus in tesquis Eurasiae mediae a saeculo nono a.C.n. fere usque ad saeculum quartum p.C.n. imperabant.Bonfante 2011:110. Quae terra Scythia generatim nominabatur. Eorum linguae probabiliter ad ramum orientalem linguarum Iranicarum pertinebant.Beckwith 2009:61.
Qualis introductio est subtilior? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:03, 25 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio falsa?

thread_title: Notae

message: I haven't studied the above (and have only myself to blame). I came fresh to the article today. Since five of the footnotes led to no actual references, and one was to a book antipodean to ancient Scythia, they simply had to be deleted at once. Since six of them claimed to support one introductory sentence, they were clearly the result of playground battles on en:wiki. An introductory sentence should be uncontroversial and need no support, except, maybe, for the Latin term with which it begins!
As to the text of the article, the next editor might want to shorten that as well before writing something better. See how it looks now that the illusive notes have gone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 12 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all the names are enumerated in a later sentence, I deleted nearly all of them from the first sentence. No need for this duplication within a single paragraph. Most of them were not Latin anyway. The two Latin names (which some may argue are synonymous) are Scythae and Sacae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 10 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientia dubia?
Disputatio:Totum bellum

message: "Totum bellum" has the disadvantage that the primary meaning, I think, would be "the whole war." Perhaps "bellum universum"? The OLD gives as one definition "Affecting everyone or everything, general, universal." "Bellum absolutum, completum" would imply falsely that the war is finished. "Bellum totale" would be the medieval solution. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:08, 31 Martii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorter is usually better, but maybe a more explanatory phrase, like bellum omnino gestum, would be OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:26, 31 Martii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:U Pu

message: So that this doesn't remain a non stipula I've cited my own book. When I have more time I'll check the sources I used and cite those! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non non stipula
Disputatio:Abgarus V

message: Correxi Latinitatem. Statim addidi epistolam, quam scripsit rex Abgarus; deinde illam, quam rescripsit Iesus Christus, et conclusionem epistolarum. Pauca quoque emendavi de ipso epistolarum textu, ut Vicipaediana praecepta observarent.
Si quis potest, addat vinculum externum, quod addere nequivi:
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/sine-data,_AA_VV,_Evangelia_Apocrypha_[Tischendorf_Von._Constantin],_LT_GR.pdf Urbanus Ferrarius (disputatio) 19:49, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mihi adiutorio estote.
Disputatio:Pomacium

message: "Sicera" est sine dubio origo verborum vernacularium cider, cidre, sidra sed id verbum Latinum, in fontibus quos perlegi omnibus, significationem latiorem habet, "potiones fortes quae non sunt vinum". Vide e.g. citationem Capitularis de villis de "siceratoribus" quam in notam nostram inscripsi. Verbum a nobis accipiendum "pomatium/pomaceum" esse suadeo. An movere oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Moveatur! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:01, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Solanum tuberosum

message: Quid significat vocabulum commons? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:36, 11 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymus, fortasse linguae nostrae expers, parvam rem utilem nihilominus fecit:  enim ad  redirigitur. Gratias eo agamus.

text: Tu, mi amice (qui linguam Latinam loquens nihilominus verba Anglica permulta in paginis Vicipaedicis celavisti) hoc verbum, si voluisti, mutare in  potuisti :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 11 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

text: .. atque ego taliter ... id quod nunc facio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nunc hodie quidam 85.76.0.66 "Commonscat" in nonnullis commentariis posuit. The best way of discouraging this sort of thing may be to make "Commons" and "Commonscat," with similar commands (like "File" and "Image") NONFUNCTIONAL, so the ignorant helper will immediately know that something isn't right. Either that, or one of Vicipaedia's programmers will regularly want to run a program localizing such anglicisms. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:09, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It seems very odd for you to raise this when you add so much hidden English to the pages you create. If it's wrong for "ignorant helpers" (as you call them) to do it, how can you think that it's OK for you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Apples & oranges: one mindlessly makes a program do something; the other quietly waits to assist experts who happen by. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 13 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

text: :::No, no, you are far from mindless :) but I agree, and said already, that the anonymus was quietly assisting us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 13 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Care usor 85.76.183.160

message: Solanum tuberosum is the name of the plant species, but shouldn't it be mentioned that the name for the potato itself is capsicum annuum?
replies: text: If you could find a good source for that, it might be worth citing, but Capsicum annuum is not normally a name for the potato at all, it's the scientific name for the most widespread species of chilli/red peppers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 21 Octobris 2016 (UTC)
Why are there so many overly verbose terms on this wiki? New Latin/Neo-Latin doesn't have to be this complicated. The word patata is even accepted as New Latin on Wiktionary. If Ancient Romans were alive today, do you think they would painstakingly refer to it as Solanum tuberosum every single time? --Crixcricem (disputatio) 04:00, 3 Martii 2024 (UTC)
* Patata is another article, and there is a link to it at the beginning. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:11, 3 Martii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin name
Disputatio:Monumentum Bachianum Arnstadii

message: Nonne movendum placet esse in Monumentum Bachii …? --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:37, 27 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Vel Bachianum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 27 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuius monumentum?
Disputatio:Morphophonologia

message: Neander, inquis (vi litteris addita): "Morphophonologia nullo pacto ad phoneticam refertur" sed sic legimus:
replies: text: en: Morphophonology (also morphophonemics or morphonology) is the branch of linguistics that studies the interaction between morphological and phonological or phonetic processes.

text: fr: La morphophonologie est une branche de la linguistique à cheval entre la phonologie et la morphologie, qui étudie la réalisation phonétique des morphèmes d'une langue en fonction des contextes dans lesquels ils apparaissent.
Quomodo hanc discrepantiam resolvere debemus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:10, 15 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

text: In linguistica structurali à la Zellig Harris, Bernard Bloch, Charles Hockett et consortes analysis gradatim a fundamentis phoneticis sursum progrediebatur, et commixtio graduum (mixing of levels) interdicta erat. Ubi ad morpho(phono)logiam perventum est, phonematum paradigmate definito non iam de phonetica agitur — quamquam sunt, quibus non illuxit, quo modo phonologia a phonetica differat. "Sed haec annis 1940 et 1950 facta sunt," dicat aliquis. Ita vero, sed ea quidem aetate principia morphophonologiae concepta sunt. ¶ Ceterum demiror, cur alias vicipaedias citaris, quamquam vicipaedias fontes fidos non esse constat. Etiam demiror, unde vicipaedia Anglica suam quam citasti sapientiam deprompserit. Vix quidem ex libro a Bruce Hayes scripto, quamquam hoc — et solum hoc — opus ad bibliographiam allatum est. Neander (disputatio) 15:58, 15 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Phon...-?
Disputatio:Syntaxis

message: S = sententia (sentence), N = nomen (noun, which includes substantive and adjective, though in the example just substantives (nomina substantiva) are present), D = pronomen demonstrativum (demonstrative pronoun), V = verbum (verb). But what's NP and VP? -84.161.19.127 23:49, 15 Augusti 2015 (UTC) & 01:38, 16 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Noun phrase and verb phrase, but if the question is whether they should be used in Latin, I'm not sure. What do linguists writing in other languages use? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:25, 16 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What's ''NP'' and ''VP''?
Disputatio:Fanum

message: Hic commentarius cum en:Shrine, non cum en:Place of worship, congruus videtur. Vide definitiones:
replies: text: Fanum est locus sanctus.

text: A shrine . . . is a holy or sacred place.

text: A place of worship is a specially designed structure or consecrated space.
Ergo in indice decem milium commentariorum, in parte  nunc inscribitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 23 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Myrias:Philosophia}}</nowiki>
Disputatio:Publius Cornelius P.f. Cossus

message: Contributionem proposita Cossi et Maluginensis dubito; saltem in :en:List of Roman consuls separate nominantur. Num unus idemque consul sunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 15:54, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De contributione proposita