lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Vincentius van Gogh

message: Nactus commentatiunculam hanc, sat bene conscriptam, ausus sum quaedam pro modulo meo corrigere.  (Imposuerat nescio quis censuram "latinitas corrigenda -4," iniuste sane.)  [Etant tombé sur ce petit article, très bien écrit d'ailleurs, j'ai pris la liberté d'y faire quelques retouches.  Quelqu'un y avait mis un "latinitas corrigenda -4," pas du tout justifié.]  David Carolinus, 19 Apr. 2007.
thread_title:  Emendationes factae 

message: What is the meaning of "umquam" here? Was "etiam" intended, perhaps? Toddcs (disputatio) 00:45, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My suspect is that it means what it usually means, “ever”, so: “He is considered today the most important painter ever”. But if I am not wrong Latin would normally use adhuc for that, so “Adhuc maximus artifex esse dicitur”. Moreover I am also not really convinced that we should say about any artist that he or she is the most important artist ever. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:53, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :@Grufo: Thank you for shedding light on that. Toddcs (disputatio) 03:01, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Indeed, assessments like "the greatest artist ever" veer into POV territory and should be cut or attributed to reliable authorities. Respectably compiled surveys of the most important people & things in certain domains are available,For example: *Haggbloom, Steven J., Renee Warnick, Jason E. Warnick, Vinessa K. Jones, Gary L. Yarbrough, Tenea M. Russell, Chris M. Borecky, Reagan McGahhey, John L. Powell III, Jamie Beavers, et Emmanuelle Monte. 2002. "The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century." Review of General Psychology 6 (2): 139–52. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139. ISSN 1939-1552. and assessments can fairly be attributed to them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: I totally agree that phrases like "greatest X ever" veer into POV. But if it feels appropriate to use this kind of assessment in Latin, "umquam maximus" looks suspect. "Omnium maximus" would be an established idiom, but in this case it would be an exaggeration. I changed the sentence to "Hodie inter maximos artifices numeratur". Neander (disputatio) 15:30, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hodie umquam maximus artifex esse dicitur." 

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Cubitus (anatomia)

message: Articulatio? This is the one place in the WHOLE Vicipaedia where we SHOULD use the word articulus!--Ioshus (disp) 19:29, 19 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: from de.wiki Articulatio cubiti  as traslation of Joint or Gelenk or articolazione. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 19:34, 19 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok yes, they are very similar, but in Latin, the articulus is the actual join, and articulatio is the jointed segment. Subtle difference. I just thought it was funny, because we have rampant uses of incorrect articulus, and this article is the actual perfect place for articulus.--Ioshus (disp) 23:54, 21 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I took it  ..
Disputatio:Momoe Yamaguti

message: Salve, Nicola! Gratias ob conlationem tuam. Mihi sunt res nonnullae explicandae:
#Forma lemmatis formae tituli congruenda est. Si titulus est Yamaguchi, ita legatur lemma.
#Lemmata litteris pinguibus scribenda : Momoe Yamaguti non Mamoe Yamaguti.
#Tametsi si scilicet, lingua peregrina scribenda : (Iaponice: やまぐちももえ,　山口百恵 Yamaguchi Momoe ) non (やまぐちももえ,　山口百恵 Yamaguchi Momoe).
#Res illa ultima nos fert ad : Quomodo Yamaguchi translitteretur? Nescio, aegre systemata linguarum Asiaticarum transliiterandi cognosco, at fortasse te disputationi nectam.
Iustinum, Mucium, Andream, vel Iacobum de re ultima impetres, ut periti sunt in rebus orthographicis. Vale nunc.--Ioshus (disp) 16:20, 21 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: res nonnulla
Disputatio:Iudicia de magia apud Salem acta

message: I know it's clunky, but should this be a bit longer of a title? Like Iudicium in Magas apud Salem? Iudicium Magarum doesn't sound to me ears like Salem witch trials.--Ioshus (disp) 23:59, 21 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: L&S: "omnia judicia aut distrahendarum controversiarum aut puniendorum maleficiorum causā reperta sunt, Cic. Caecin. 2 : dignitatis meae, concerning, id. Brut. 1, 1 : praetor judicium prius de probro, quam de re fieri maluit, id. Quint." It seems that the thing undergoing judgment is (1) genitive or (2) ablative after de. So Iudicium/Iudicia magarum apud Salem? IacobusAmor 00:39, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :If it's good enough for Cicero. Let's do it. But I think it should be plural, after all, it was several trials.--Ioshus (disp) 01:36, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: Re: "ab religiosis nomine Purgati." Oiei! Who are these Purged People (Purgati)? If they're supposed to be 'puritans,' we have (says Du Cange) a perfectly good modern Latin term for them: puritani, -orum. If something more classical is wanted, puritans are homines qui puriorem religionem profitentur. IacobusAmor 00:56, 22 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purgati?

message: This article has the flavour of a (junior-?)high-school student's paper, not of an encyclopedia article. Compare what it says with what en: says, and you'll see the difference. Drastically revise it, cutting most of the text? IacobusAmor 18:40, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the previous speaker!

text: To me the title seems POV: by calling the women "magae" we are condemning them. I guess the English name of the events is enshrined in history, but in Latin we can do better. I suggest "Iudicia de magia apud Salem acta". (Or "de magica", but "De magia" was the title of Lucius Apuleius's defence when he was accused of witchcraft.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 3 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sic! Praeterea: some of the accused & convicted & executed were males, so avoiding the femininity of magae would make for more accurate history. IacobusAmor 11:24, 3 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: De commentarii natura
Disputatio:Hygiene

message: "Hygiene" is a just-possible Latin word (as a Greek loanword that is), and common internationally, so I thought it a good idea to retain a redirect under this title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:58, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now found quite a few examples of modern Latin "hygiaena" [sic] in lists of medical specialties, including   , see also this online dictionary: so maybe we should mention this spelling even if we don't choose it.

text: There are, however, also plenty of examples of "hygienae"  and "hygienam" . It's more difficult to confirm "hygiene" cas. nom. because that spelling is normal in other languages too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: : Hanc annotationem non vidi antequam meam editionem terminavi. Si quid mutare vis, Andrea, mutato ut tibi placet. Mihi ipsi cordi erat pro "sanitatis cura" (cui nullum fontem repperi) hygienen vel sim. substituere. Neander (disputatio) 13:50, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Mihi videtur (vide supra) alium quemque hanc paginam ab "Hygiene" ad "Sanitatis cura" anno 2007 movisse.

text: ::Gaudeo te citationes verbi Latini "hygiene" iam repperisse. An re vera Latinistae recentiores hoc verbum a Francogallizantibus acceperunt, seu directo a scriptoribus Graecis? Haud scio! -- sed res pauci momenti est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Testimonium verbi formarum mira diligentia attulisti. Macte! Hygiene unde re vera ad nos descenderit, propter vocalismum dubitavi. Nunc demum arbitror hygienen recta a Graeco ducendam esse, ut tu quoque admonuisti: fortasse ponendum est -ιει- > latine -iē- (cf. Ἀλεξάνδρεια > apud Ciceronem Alexandrēa > postea Alexandrīa, etc.), et quidem ante aetatem imperatoriam. Nescio. Sed utique partes Francogallicissantium dempsi. Neander (disputatio) 17:57, 5 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Credo ει in lingua classica solum ante vocalum ē reddi: Alexandrea, sed etiam Dareus. De -ιει- + C nescio, nam exempla abesse videntur. Nonnulla autem exempla hygiine  et hygiina  reperio. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:53, 1 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:Visigothi

message: In pagina dixit:
replies: text: Anno 376 Greuthungi et Tervingi Valentem rogaverunt ut se fines Romanos incolere permitteret, sed solum Tervingi id impetraverunt. Haec res fuit causa belli cum Roma gesti.
Sed credo citatio desiderata  esse quia in una pagina relativa Anglice :en:Battle of Adrianople dixit:

text: In 376, displaced by the invasions of the Huns, the Goths, led by Alavivus and Fritigern, asked to be allowed to settle in the Roman Empire. Hoping that they would become farmers and soldiers, the emperor Valens allowed them to establish themselves in the Empire as allies (foederati). However, once across the Danube in Roman territory the dishonesty of the provincial commanders Lupicinus and Maximus led the newcomers to revolt after suffering many hardships. 
etiam in pagina :en:Visigoths dixit:

text: The Goths remained in Dacia until 376, when one of their leaders, Fritigern, appealed to the Roman emperor Valens to be allowed to settle with his people on the south bank of the Danube. Here, they hoped to find refuge from the Huns. Valens permitted this. However, a famine broke out and Rome was unwilling to supply them with the food they were promised nor the land; open revolt ensued leading to 6 years of plundering and destruction throughout the Balkans, the death of a Roman Emperor and the destruction of an entire Roman army.
Ergo nescio quod credere.Rafaelgarcia 08:57, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Isidori Historia Gothorum 9 scripsit:
replies: text: :::Aera CDXVI, anno XIV imperii Valentis (378) , Gothi, qui primum Christianos a terra sua expulerant, rursus ipsi ab Hunnis cum rege suo Athanarico expulsi sunt; transitoque Danubio, cum vim ferre non possent Valentis imperatoris, sese non depositis armis tradunt, et Thraciam ad inhabitandum accipiunt. Sed ubi viderunt se opprimi a Romanis contra consuetudinem propriae libertatis, ad rebellandum coacti sunt. Thraciam ferro incendiisque depopulantur, deletoque Romanorum exercitu, ipsum Valentem iaculo vulneratum, in quadam villa fugientem, succenderunt, ut merito ipse ab eis vivus temporali cremaretur incendio, qui tam pulchras animas ignibus aeternis tradiderat.

text: :Ergo sequamur Isidori et citatio :en:Battle of Adriannople. Pagina Vicipaediae scribat: "Anno 376 Greuthungi et Tervingi Valentem rogaverunt ut se fines Romanos incolere permitteret, sed solum Tervingi id impetraverunt. Tunc, ubi Gothi viderunt se opprimi a Romanis contra consuetudinem propriae libertatis, ad rebellandum coacti sunt, et belli cum Roma gesti est." Consentimusne?--Xaverius 09:19, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Xavieri, ita est. Gratias tibi ago. Splendidam paginam creavisti sed, ut credo, citationes debes addere. Sic tuis paginis lectores res verifare possunt, e. g.  Isidori Historia Gothorum 9 .Rafaelgarcia 12:12, 25 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Corpus Domini

message: Revertere abusiviter, sine explicatione, more barbarico est. Complenere ellipticos propositiones de transubstantiatione, non vandalicus est, sed constantinopolitanem sanctam othodoxiam sanctio et anathema super transgressiones vaticanorum vates Cybelae.
↑ Quis hoc scripsit? IacobusAmor 18:05, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio! E loco 82.123.179.67, certe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: For my edification, could an English-speaker elucidate the grammar here for me? This cum + indicative "points to a general chronological coincidence between two actions" (Minkova 2001:49), but I don't see how that works; was the historical cum with the imperfect subjunctive intended? This claedes isn't in my dictionary; clades is, but it's feminine, and this claedes is neuter. And why is papa nominative? IacobusAmor 18:05, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand cum magnum claedes ... either. I took that clause out. I guess we wanted the genitive papae so I've made that change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good. It makes more sense now! When puzzled, I often wonder what it is that I'm missing, so I'd still like to know what the original writer meant. IacobusAmor 18:32, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "cum magnum claedes haereticorum profectus fuit, iussu papa."
Disputatio:Karate

message: Those breves mark short syllables, but the rules of Latin then require the word to be stressed on the antepenult: cárate. Is that what the author intends? In English, it's stressed on the penult: karáte. Just wondering. IacobusAmor 18:36, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cărătĕ

message: Salve. Nomen karate non Latine est, ita movere oporteamus. Quid censetis? Ceterum, praefero karate ad Latinitatem dare, exempli gratia "Caratium", sed modo desideratum est. -- Donatello (disputatio) 04:33, 19 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: "Caratium"? :(  Sed licet nobis uti nomen caratica - haec pagina profert fontem qui habet luctatio caratica, et Morgan citavit Eichenseer qui dedit lucta caratica.  —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 00:14, 22 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Solum desideratum mihi est. Nihil velim habere. Sed quid censetis de movere? Dicam "luctationem caraticam". -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:32, 22 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  Nomen commentationis
Disputatio:Eccentricitas

message: Nescio si focus rectum verbum est (italice = fuoco)
nescioque si axis etiam rectum... (italice = asse)

message: I'm afraid "De ellipsis eccentricitatis" doesn't work. "De" is a preposition followed by the ablative; therefore, I think you intended to say "De eccentricitate". "Ellipsis" is a proper genitive, I think, however, the plural would be more suitable ("ellipsium"). So the title should be "De ellipsium eccentricitate".
By the way, does "eccentricitas" mean "eccentricity" in English? I have learnt this term ("lineare Exzentrizität" = "linear eccentricity") as the absolute value of the abscissa of one of the foci (so it is  e = \sqrt{a^2 - b^2} , as can be shown with Pythagoras). However, since you used "eccentricitas" and not "eccentricitas linearis", I could also be mistaken in this point.
One last thing: I think, from a mathematical point of view, the use of a symbol for this quantity would be recommendable (you can set this equal to the  \frac{c}{a} ). --Ahib 16:56, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propositions for correction
Disputatio:Franciscus Bellissimo

message: ?--Ioshus (disp) 23:43, 26 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: It has been suggested (see Disputatio_Usoris:Alex1011#Francesco Bellissimo) that this article was cross-wiki spam. It looks to me the kind of article we would keep, so long as he has really published what is claimed: see en:wiki for further details. Do others agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you--Massimo Macconi 10:06, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's almost funny the way upstart netcops turn up (out of the blue, not having contributed texts, and not having shown familiarity with the language), to suppress alleged upstart biographees! IacobusAmor 15:40, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Please don't knock them, though! -- they are people like you and me and they are doing their best.

text: ::ZASSHI CODE 090159 relates to a magazine, not a book publication: I don't yet see how to verify it. I doubt if appearances on television are notable per se.

text: ::Let's just watch for a bit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 10 Martii 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this page has been recreated on the fr wiki after a previous deletion and is now waiting for instant deletion. There is no more en:wiki about this guy. X-Javier 21:03, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda?
Disputatio:Rex Romanorum

message: Redirigendan?--Ioshus (disp) 17:17, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: ..it's a very helpful page. When I did the list of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire it was very difficult for me, because I didn't understand at once that not all the enlisted persons on the other wikis had the title of Imperor. Some of them actually had  not been coronated by the Pope.--Massimo Macconi 17:32, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gratias tibi pro tua sententia, Massimo. --Sempronius Tyro 17:47, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok, I was just asking. Catholic history, as we all know, is not my strong point. I trust you gentlemen, just doesn't hurt to check up every now and then =]. --Ioshus (disp) 17:59, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Like Massimo, I have found this a very difficult area. Some of the interwiki pages (e.g. the English one) have lists of the "Kings of the Romans". Maybe eventually we should have such a list too ... but I am not sure whether those others are reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 27 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no from my point of view
Disputatio:Amadeus VI Sabaudiae

message: cur "comes" non "comitus" ? Doops 06:07, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: Campanini-Carboni. 1961. Vocabolario Latino–Italiano; Italiano–Latino. Torino verbum Italicum conte Latine Comes, Comitis translatum est --Massimo Macconi 06:14, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putavi verbum antiquum comes, comitis significare "companion"; et verbum mediaevale comitus, comiti significare "count, earl" etc. Doops 06:21, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Erras, ut credo ego. Sed habes citationem huius verbi "comitus nom. = count"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comes aut Comitus 

message: sum, sed etiam Langescheidt, Taschenwörterbuch Latein: Comes, Comitis= Graf. Praeterea  Italice conte (ut milite e verbo miles, militis et alia verba III decl.) et non conto (ut lupo e verbo  lupus, -i et alia verba II decl.) dicitur.
thread_title:  expertus non
Disputatio:Mstislaus Rostropowicz

message: Quum modus scribendi Mstislav Rostropovich in Ephemeride utitur, maxime dubio haec forma hic etiam in usu esse debet. Mstislaus et Mscislaus sunt latinizationes pro Mstislav. Puto, nomen familiae possumus sicut Rostropowicz scribere, quia Polonicum est, sed non certus sum. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:22, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: for your suggestions I had no idea how to write it in Latin characters. If you believe correct it directely. There isn't a Latin name for Mstislav, what does it mean? Ciao--Massimo Macconi 14:53, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a Slavic name: "Mstislav" in Russian, "Mścisław" in Polish. "Msti-/Mści-" comes from "mstit'"/"mścić" (to revenge) and "-sław" - from "slava"/"sława" (glory). So, the name means "the man, who gets glory by revenge" or something like that. Thanks to the Poles, we have a latinization of the name. In fact, as far as I can judge, all "-slav" endings of Slavic male names are turned into "-slaus" being latinized. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:16, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you .. 

message: 'Cello' est forma abbreviata vocabuli Italici 'Violoncello'.  Quomodo Latine dici debet? Violunculus simillimus videretur. Puto 'violinam' et 'fidiculam' ambas hic accepisse, idcirco fortasse solum dicamus 'fidicula maior' aut 'violina maior'?Tergum violinae 19:01, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Cello
Disputatio:Labina nivis

message: Needs a better category...--Ioshus (disp) 03:07, 30 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pericula geologica? pericula naturalia (avalanche, dust storm, flood, hurricane, tornado, volcanic eruption)? Nix (avalanche, blizzard, glacier, snowball, snow man)? Montes (avalanche, caldera, lava, sea mount, volcano)? IacobusAmor 03:20, 30 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I can't find Labina nivis anywhere, is it attested somewhere? According to the dictionary Labes means landslide, Labina small landslide?--Rafaelgarcia 23:07, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In Lewis & Short labina is "a slippery place" (cited from Isidore only, early medieval), so you would expect labina nivis to mean an icy stretch on a footpath. Our page then offers Nivium lapsum but that seems wrong as well -- it ought to be lapsus. Also phoenomenum needs severe correction: Lewis and Short give phaenomenon; I guess phaenomenum might exist somewhere; phoeno- is dreadful. The authors might perhaps look at the dictionary again and confirm which if any of these forms are really in it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Germen wikip derives Lawine from Latin "labina" <- labi, labor (to slip, glide). According to this "labina" was the word (for Lawine) with the Romanic speaking population from where it passed into German language.

text: :::Pons has "moles nivium".--Alex1011 09:12, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::How right you are about labina. Unrecorded in classical texts, it must in fact have been a common Latin word, at least in Alpine districts, because (as I now see from ) it reappears in many modern Italian dialects; via Provençal, it is the origin of French avalanche. I ought not to have doubted it; it is probably the best possible term.

text: ::::I am still doubtful about nivium lapsum (because I don't find lapsum elsewhere as a neuter noun) so I have moved it into a footnote until confirmation comes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:08, 20 Maii 2008 (UTC)

text: :::Nivis ruina is what I have usually seen. The plural nivium seems overextended to me. I'll look up some sources.--Ioscius (disp) 03:51, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)

message: 151.37.44.90, care amice, mutasti
replies: text: nivium lapsum,Apud .
in

text: nivium lapsus,Apud .
dicens "Ut substantivum e verbo labendi conficiatur, Latine non dicitur per supinum "lapsum" sed "lapsus, -us" masculini generis, quartæ declinationis." Probe dicis, ut videtur, sed haec quaestio necessario oritur: Castiglioni es? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:25, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

text: This was going round in circles. I have taken the modern lemmas out of the text again: there is no need for them, because we have a good early term which we should prefer. Pons and Castiglioni simply didn't know it. The form quoted from Castiglioni is anyway dubious (as pointed out by me above, and again by the anonymous editor). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:38, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Castiglioni?