lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Peditum

message: De: "Crepitus (-ūs m.) sive crepitus ventris seu pēdĭtum (-i n.) est sonitus, qui fit non cithara nec buccina nec cymbalis bene sonantibus, sed culo."—Immo, crepitus sunt sonitus multorum generum (Anglice: 'rattling, creaking, rustling, clattering'), non solum pedita. Ergo aut lemma aut definitio est falsa. IacobusAmor 12:56, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio - moveamus paginam ad peditum? --Xaverius 13:02, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Adnuo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio falsa?
Disputatio Categoriae:Vetus Testamentum

message: Nisi fallor "Vetus Testamentum" est forma verborum Christiana, quia implicat et adventum "Novi Testamenti". Igitur pro rebus Christianis tantum "Categoria:Vetus Testamentum" optime stat, sed, pro rebus Iudaicis et religione carentibus et sine POV, oportet "Categoria:Biblia" praeferre. An recte iudicavi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, amice. Vide quod Wikipedia confirmat: "The Old Testament is the collection of books that forms the first of the two-part Christian Biblical canon. The contents of the Old Testment [sic] canon vary from church to church, with the Orthodox communion having 51 books: the shared books are those of the shortest canon, that of the major Protestant communions, with 39 books." IacobusAmor 16:57, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : sorry, I do not even remeber to have deleted the category, if I did it, it was a misstake. --Helveticus montanus 06:22, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De usu categoriarum "Biblia" et "Vetus Testamentum"
Disputatio:Ordines numerorum

message: Hey PC, was this page meant to correspond with anything? I'm not sure what to write about here. --Ioscius  ∞ 18:46, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: en:Number system, to which I added the interwikis. Pantocrator 14:29, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Would then systema numerorum be more adequate than ordo ("row/rank/order")?--Xaverius 16:08, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: page
Disputatio:TP

message: Salve mi Nuada. Non est haec prima petitio ne facias redirectiones tales. Ecce :en:TP. Ad minimum 50 usus abbreviationis TP enumerantur, quorum nullus agit ad tuum Drepanum. Quaeso fac discretivam. Gratias! --Ioscius  ∞ 06:43, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Iterum et iterum creauit Nuada talīs. Nescio quod nos debere. Alteras significationes de 'TP' habemus? Pantocrator 12:37, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Surely this often happens; the creator of a redirect doesn't realise how many meanings that word or abbreviation can have. When further meanings are noted, another editor replaces the redirect with a discretiva page. Normal Wikipedia work.

text: :OK, if there are links to the redirect, those links then should preferably be changed. So it's better not to make links to such a redirect at all: I have mentioned this point on Nuada's talk page. But there's only one such link to TP (and for the present I don't even see why TP should be a discretiva, though it might need to be in the future). Likewise there's one such link to ME, which I have just turned into a discretiva. Among our problems, this one doesn't seem to me so very serious? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: redirectio
Disputatio:Primera fila

message: Emendavi tres sententiarum tuarum, quae grammaticae errores habeuiere:
# Cosiéndome el corazón ("Consuendo meum cordem")
# Enséñame a vivir ("Doce me ad vivere")
# Qué será de ti ("Quid erit cum te")
Cor est neutralis nomen substantivum, idest nominativus comparatus est accusativo. (hocest: cor)
Vivere infinitum verbum est, forma gerundio utimur: vivendum. Verbi "doceo" scitu meae sententiae c rectio casus certe accusativus est. (non utimur praepositione "ad")
"Cum" pronominibus personalibus: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum (solum his casibus) 
 Kijavítottam 3 mondatodat, amelyeknek nyelvtani hibái voltak:
# Cosiéndome el corazón ("Consuendo meum cordem")
# Enséñame a vivir ("Doce me ad vivere")
# Qué será de ti ("Quid erit cum te")
A szív (cor, -dis n.) semlegesnemű, azaz, az alanyesete megegyezik a tárgyesettel. Vagyis marad cor.
A "vivere" egy olyan igenév, amelyet egyáltalán nem ragozunk. Ilyen esetben gerundiumot (a summáriumban gerundivumot írtam ezért bocsánat) használunk. A doceo tudtommal kettős accusativusa van, azaz táegyesetet használunk mind arra, akit tnítunk, mind arra, amire oktatjuk. Azaz marad vivendum.
Cum személyes névmás alakjai: mecum, tecum, nobiscum, vobiscum... (a többi az nincs így egybe)
--Martinus567 16:10, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Wow, te magyar vagy? Köszönöm szépen! / Multas gratias tibi ago! / Muchas gracias!. Nem gondoltam, hogy csak ennyi hiba lesz benne, megmondom őszintén, soha nem tanultam latint, csak rámragadt (a spanyol hasonlósága miatt). Ezt az utóbbit pedig tudtam, csak valahogy kiesett. :) (Spanyolul is egyébként összevont alak: conmigo < CUM+TECUM, contigo < CUM+TECUM, szóval nem is értem, hogy nem jutott eszembe.) --El Mexicano 18:47, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tres emendationes
Disputatio:Memum

message: Demiror, qua ratione facta (et unde excerpta et cuius generis) sit vocabuli forma q.e. "mema". Dawkins, cum de "novo replicatore" rite nuncupando cogitaret, in animo habuit mimēma 'imitamentum; res per imitationem facta', neutrius generis vocabulum Graecum, quod Anglice "mimeme" reddidit. Apud amicos suos classicarum linguarum peritos se excusans primam syllabam de "mimeme" detraxit, ut vocem cum vocabulo q.e. "gene" 'genum' melius concinentem fingeret. Itaque, si eandem ac Dawkins rationem teneamus, nonne "memum" (ut "genum") dicere debeamus? Sin autem imitandi principium a Dawkinsio positum respiciamus, quin "mimema (-atis n.)" a Graeco sermone mutuatum accipiamus? (Vel si primá syllabá detractá "mema" dicere velimus, quin ut "mimema" coniugemus?) Denique restat, ut "meme" ab Anglico sermone mutuemur et aut indeclinabile esse aut ut "rete" coniugari statuamus. Hos versus scripsi, ne, si quid amplius de mimemate / memate / memo / meme scripserim, utique formá q.e. "mema, -ae f." repudiatá nimis praecipitanter egisse videar. Quid censetis? --Neander 17:39, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :de:Mem aliud nobis etymon praebet: nomen derivatum esse vult a nomine Graeco "mnēmē" 'memoria', quae est feminini generis. Si hoc exemplum sequamur (cuius tamen fontem nescio), forma "mema, -ae f." minime repudianda sit, sed forma "meme, -es f." (declinatione Graeca adhibita) fortasse etiam anteponenda. --Fabullus 20:44, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: Ceterum, "memum" Omnipaedista noster iam proposuit, ut hic legere potes. --Fabullus 21:27, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quamquam meme, -es oculis mihi placet, sunt certae res, quae paululum reniti videntur. Hoc enim (meme a mneme) etymon haudquaquam ignoro, sed praetereundum esse censeo, quippe quod post et contra Dawkinsium propositum sit. Constat enim Dawkinsium auctorem esse vocabuli meme ac postea de re interrogatum dixisse se nihil de "mneme" scivisse. Quod cum ita sit, quin auctoritatem suae inventionis ipsi auctori concedamus? "M(n)eme" etiam a causa, cur Dawkins suum terminum technicum creaverit, aberrare videtur, nam dubium non est, quin de imitatione vel mimesi agatur. Quod ad "memum" attinet, scire velim, utrum Omnipaedista hanc formam alicunde excerptam rettulerit an ipse quasi obiter eam dixerit. Ipse quidem "memum" non plane repudio. --Neander 23:49, 16 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Mihi quidem persuasisti "meme" Latine "memum" vertendum esse, etiamsi regulam non fingendi nostram infringere videtur, quia "memum" ad "genum" eandem rationem exhibet ac Anglice "meme" ad "gene", quam rationem omnes fere linguae conservant, velut Graeca etiam  et . --Fabullus 18:16, 1 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)

message: I believe that the English word “meme” should be treated like “phoneme”, “morpheme”, etc. Hence the Latin translation should be mema (gen.: mematis). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:56, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo huius paginae
Disputatio:Nucleus atomi

message: Meliore Latinitate Nucleus atomicus? IacobusAmor 13:42, 17 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Vix credendum est, quamquam Anglice "atomic nucleus" dicitur. Apud Pitkäranta "Nucleus atomi" praebetur. --Neander 00:06, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma: ''Nucleus atomi''
Disputatio:Summus mons

message: More-usual terms for that definition are summus mons, and for a summit (of trees, mountains, etc.) cacumen, and by extension (for any peak)  apex; and  Cassell's defines summum as 'surface, top'—i.e., of anything, not just a mountain. IacobusAmor 13:25, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Summo Pyrenaeo", etc., often occurs in Roman itinera. It doesn't mean the peak, it means the top of the pass -- the highest point on the road. I would go for cacumen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Interesting! Cassell's says J. C. has summum iugum montis. IacobusAmor 14:04, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::He liked to be precise about things. Except when precision told against him. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
This article should probably be on culmen which captures the vertical idea. Cacumen is the extreme point of everything (no verticality implied). "Summum" is too vague, because it's basically a superlative adjective qua substantive. --Neander 16:23, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Defintio: "Summum est punctum altissimum montis."
Disputatio:Eucharistia

message: Care 82.36.89.155, usor sine nomine:
replies: text: 1. Nomen coena secundum Cassell's recte est cena. Unde haec littera O?

text: 2. Quis est hic Ihesu (nomen tribus syllabis enunciatum, I-he-su)? IacobusAmor 16:38, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nomini Iesu certe sunt tres syllabae. Nomen per linguam Graecam venit, ubi iota initiale non indicat (umquam?) I consonantem (cf. ).  —Mucius Tever 01:58, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Coena est literatio usitata in plurimis libris liturgicis. 
'h' omnino silet in lingua Latina, ut scis, sed saepe inseri solet in nominibus Graecis ab Hebraica derivata ut melius nomen originale repraesentet. Sic Iohannes pro Ioannes. Ihesus praeferebatur in libris et bibliis Latinis usque ad medium saeculum 19mum.

text: Pronuntiatus classicus et Germanicus sono /h/ non carent. --Gabriel Svoboda 07:26, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :De: "'h' omnino silet in lingua Latina."—Immo, 'h' NON omnino silet in lingua Latina. "The only safe rule for the English reader is to pronounce Latin h as such wherever he finds it in his modern texts. . .. . He will thereby be following, with perhaps even greater consistency than the native speaker, the habits of at least the most literate levels of classical Roman society" (W. Sidney Allen, Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 45). IacobusAmor 12:35, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Lucky, then, that we don't find Ihesus in our modern texts. All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: :) IacobusAmor 12:44, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Litterae
Disputatio:Corinna Mauch

message: Corina aut Corinna? Corinna est illa alibi reperta, sed Corina melior Latine uidetur. Pantocrator 23:00, 19 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quo modo 'Corina' melior videtur? 'Corinna' est etymon nominis Corine, 'Corinna' puella fuit Ovidis, 'Corinna' fuit poetria Graeca, Κόριννα bonum Graecum nomen est, a κόρη 'puella' derivatum (cf. Φίλιννα, Μέλιννα, Ἥριννα)—et quid significavisset 'Corina'? —Mucius Tever 06:36, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, Graecum est. Casu hoc, est tunc Corinna! Pantocrator 11:21, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Latine
Disputatio:Canalis Germanicobalticus

message: Canalis [m.] Germanicobalticum [n.] !!! IacobusAmor 00:12, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You really should be commenting on Disputatio:Canalis, not here. Pantocrator 00:27, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Um, no.  A talk page is for discussion relevant to the article.  The name of this article has nothing to do with the article Canalis.  —Mucius Tever 14:59, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Exsuperius (episcopus Tolosanus)

message: Non vidi, editor anonyme, hanc paginam novissimam esse. Si ab orthographia mea Exsu- dissentis, revertere possumus.
Vide, si vis, paginam Episcopi et archiepiscopi Tolosani et disputationem adnexam. Potes fortasse de identitate Sancti Hilarii lucem instillare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
De descriptionibus aliis praeferendis, agnomine "Sanctus" in titulo omisso, vide Disputatio Categoriae:Sancti (et ibi commentum adde, si vis!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Potentia (physica)

message: Potentia in physica est celeritas in quo energia applicata est. Potest definire (in motu mechanica) vis in velocitate multiplicata.—Glossed with phonetic warping to capture grammatical quirks: 'Potency in physics is the swiftness in whooch energy has been applied. Force (in mecheenical motion) can limit in manifold swiftness.' The subject of the second sentence is vis. Pantocrator, are you listening to what you're saying? IacobusAmor 17:09, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the grammar. No, when I write I don't really listen to what I'm saying, the words just come out of my fingers. Pantocrator 20:25, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Pantocrator, I hope that you're joking. Do you wield the same method, when publishing in other languages? Quite obviously, you have very much interesting things and expert knowledge to contribute to Vicipaedia. What worries me a bit is that everything that's being published here, will immediately be listened and quoted by the whole world. And those who know Latin, will draw conclusions. Four or so years ago Vicipaedia was generally ridiculed as being a playground for ambisinister Latinity. The years that have passed since those days have been very felicitous: people have improved their Latin skills by acquainting themselves with grammar and texts, and as a result, Vicipaedia is growing in appreciation. I sincerely hope that in due time you'll be a master of Latin grammar. (That won't be insurmountable for such an intelligent human.) After all, as is evidenced by Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, the gist of an autonomous language (the Saussurean langue) is its grammar, not its vocabulary. --Neander 22:38, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Adhuc nescio quid dicere coneris. Cur non scribis barbarice ut nosmet Latine reddamus?
replies: text: :::Interdum et mihi videatur illud melius esse. Pantocrator quid facias si nesciens Latine scribere non modo inspicis id quod scribis? --Ioscius  ∞ 06:58, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio
Disputatio:Batata

message: I'm confused Jacob, I thought this was a sweet potato. --Ioscius  ∞ 23:48, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, assuming it's Spanish, but why would we need a redirect from a Spanish word? Change it back if you like! IacobusAmor 23:54, 21 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since this seems to be a misspelling or a variant spelling of patata, it should redirect there, if anywhere. Pantocrator 02:09, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::...no, certainly not. 'Batata(s)' is, like the English, ambiguous between the potato and the sweet potato, but unlike the English, the sweet potato has the better claim to it, as it was certainly batatas at least as far back as Linnaeus. —Mucius Tever 03:41, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Dictionaries say the English word potato comes from some Amerindian word that also became batata. Sez en: "Batata is the word for sweet potato. . . . Also, batata is the word for potato." So batata should redirect both to Solanum tuberosum and Ipomoea batatas. And since it can't do that, it should become a disambiguation page, as it more or less is at Batata. IacobusAmor 03:51, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Already done!  —Mucius Tever 03:55, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Bravo! (If only healthcare reform had been so easy!) IacobusAmor 04:12, 22 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: sweet potato
Disputatio:Abugida

message: Secundum linguas Romanicas, alphasyllabarium fortasse melius esset? Ambo sunt verba Linguae Latinae peregrina, sed fortasse Graecum est propius? --Ioscius  ∞ 14:53, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Et quid de abjad? --Ioscius  ∞ 14:53, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opus Petri Daniels valde admiror eoque ipso amicus sum, sed neologismos eius in Wikipediam Anglicam citius acceptatos esse censeo. Haec sunt (et in lingua Anglica) verba e jargon glottologorum, a lectoribus aliis difficiliter intellecta. Alphasyllabarium verbum pellucidius est, quia, re vera, talia systemata aliqua e syllabario ideali accipiunt, aliqua ex alphabeto ideali. Idea Abjad etiam difficilius recipio, quia in talibus systematibus vocalia interdum notata sunt, imperfecte autem ... sed omnes scripturae imperfectae sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: Pro abjad formae hodiernae (consonantario, consonantary, etc.) indicant nomen "consonantarium", sed semel tantum id repperi, in hac pagina Hungarica, ubi termini mássalhangzó-írás ("συμφωνογραφία," "scriptura *consonantaria") respondet.  —Mucius Tever 23:16, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: Eadem pagina pro 'abugida' habet 'neosyllabarium', 'pseudosyllabarium' et 'semisyllabarium' (immo, dicit 'semisyllabarinm' sed certe mendum typographicum est).  —Mucius Tever 23:23, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias (tardissime) ago. Pro tempore "symphonographia" accipio (quia in lingua Latina facilius verba scientifica Graeca accipiuntur) et addo alternativum "alphasyllabarium" e linguis Romanicis confectum. 'Neosyllabarium', 'pseudosyllabarium' et 'semisyllabarium' minus laete acciperim quia talia systemata nec nova nec falsa nec dimidiata sunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 18 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

text: :Rursus moveo quia male legi: nunc intellego symphonographiam "syllabarium" esse, minime "alphasyllabarium". Igitur "abugida" rursus instauro, quia hoc verbum sine mutatione possumus in textu nostro recipere. "Alphasyllabarium" (forma Latina) haud licet fingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:52, 18 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: de nomine
Disputatio:Mons ignifer

message: The definition provided by anon in his summarium is not correct. The modern meanings of 'fusion' are post-classical (which doesn't mean we can't use them, of course, but they don't relate closely to fundere).
Fundere of course does have more general meanings, but when combined with the prepositional phrases preceding it is umambiguous (as the English rendering 'pour out from the inside of the earth'). Pantocrator 00:47, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundit 

message: Is there any pre-Wikipedian attestation of mons ignifer? Leo Latinus has mōns ignivomus - and also this article from 1826. According to  the 19th-century Smith & Hall Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary suggests mons vulcanius --Utilo 18:55, 18 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Montis igniferi" occurs just once in a whole Latin book on the subject of Vesuvius . Possibly a glance through this book will suggest a term that the author felt was more usual. I'll have a look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:15, 29 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have also come across "igniferos montes" (same book, page 18) and "mons fumifer" (in the preface).. It seems "mons ignifer" is OK, but you may want to look through further and find other variations ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 29 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Notam addidi--Utilo 22:23, 29 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Salve. Ampliorem fontem addidi

text: :::Donatello (disputatio) 19:19, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC).
thread_title:  Mons ignifer: attestation?
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Acidum carboxylicum

message: Frankly, since Vicipaedia isn't exactly /full/ of chemical information, I tried translating the english wikipedia page for carboxylic acid. Does anyone know what "group" is in Latin? Sorry if I'm being stupid, I'm only in my third year of Latin.
Taktoa 22:34, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We do lack many pages on many things, but we need them to be writen in good Latin. As it stands now is a direct transposition of English words into Latin, not a true translation into Latin.--Xaverius 22:54, 25 Martii 2010 (UTC)

message: Why is the title of this article "Vicipaedia:Acidum carboxylicum," rather than just plain "Acidum carboxylicum"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:08, 1 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:Saginatio (informatica)

message: Obviously, Vicipaedia's article Spam should refer to the trademarked name for spiced ham; or failing that, it should be a disambiguation page, as in Wikipedia. IacobusAmor 11:07, 26 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It seems that my vocabulary failed me to describe computer stuff. Pantocrator 00:45, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Roy Jenkins

message: Has Rex been previously used as a Latin forename? If not, Rex Jenkins breaches our rule because it would be a translation, not the usual transfer of vernacular-to-Latin forename. It also seems unwise because an English forename Rex exists, and we probably ought to distinguish the two. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:01, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were etymological, it might be defensible, but it isn't: 'Roy' comes from the Scotch for 'red' and is unrelated to Rex. I'll move it back. Pantocrator 00:40, 27 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I never knew that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:51, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praenomen
Disputatio:Neutralitas

message: Etiam Finni Theodisco nomine Finnlandisierung utuntur. Nonne melius sit dicere "Sunt, qui hanc rationem civilem Finnlandisierung vocent nomine Theodisco usi". "Finnlandizatio" enim vocabulum mixtum videtur parum utile esse. --Neander 22:26, 28 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quo nomine Finni uterentur nesciebam - libenter sententiam supra scriptam accipio.--Utilo 11:27, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ii qui hanc rem tractant Finni voce indigena "suomettuminen" (fere 'Finnländisch-Werden') saepissime utuntur; quodsi verbo non-Finnico opus erit, ad "Finnlandisierung" decurretur. --Neander 13:46, 29 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Finnlandizatio?
Disputatio:Consilium Europae

message: This article seems to mix two different concepts:
* The interwiki links and the emphasize on human rights imply that it refers to :en:Council of Europe, an independent international organization focusing on human rights and completely unrelated to the European Union.
* The name of the article (adjective instead of genitive), as well as the reference to the European Union, make it look like :en:European Council, a sub-body of the European Union.
The article probably should be split. Before this is done, does everybody agree with the former concept being called Europae Concilium (or Concilium Europae? what do grammarians say?) and the latter Concilium Europaeum? --Gabriel Svoboda 08:29, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Finnish presidency's Latin summaries I've found: Consilium Europaeum = European Council, but: consilium Europae = Council of Europe (= consiglio d’Europa = Europarat).  The latter one is used also by J. Bauer: De consilio Europae--Utilo 13:23, 30 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks. The Glossarium politicum looks very useful! --Gabriel Svoboda 13:58, 31 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Variantiam in varietatem commutavi, quod variantia hapaxlegomenon (vel melius: dislegomenon) esse videtur apud Lucr. 1, 653 u. 3, 318--Utilo 14:35, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Europe vs. European Council