lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Gerasimus Lebedev

message: I made some minor corrections, some of which I explain below. I think there are still some other sentences someone ought to look at, but I'm no Latin teacher so I don't know how to correct them, and also I unfortunately don't speak Russian so I can't check the original version.
”Etiam celebrus est sicut praecursor dramaturgiae Bengalicae”: This is probably ment to mean ”...as a pioneer...” In Latin you don't have to translate the preposition ”as” in this case. Just ”Etiam celebrus est praecursor dramaturgiae Bengalicae” is enough. Of course you could write ”Etiam celebrus factus est praecursor dramaturgiae Bengalicae” - ”He became famous as a pioneer”. There was also a sentence with ”sicut musicus agens” where I removed the sicut, but I'm not sure about that agens verb there, maybe someone else could take a look on that. 
”Quando quindecim agebat annos”: I don't think quando is used in a place like this, but cum with the subjunctive is used. Also I don't think I've seen a construction ”annos agere”; I would say ”Cum quindem annos natus esset”. But of course, I don't know all Latin idioms. :)
”Quando Londonium iit” → ”Cum Londonium iret”. Same as above.
Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 10:45, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve Philetyme! Yes, I got stuck on "as", but I think with the corrections that you and Iacobus made, it looks good now. The Russian was literally "He lived 12 years in India, appearing as a musician-performer and teaching music." I changed one part to "musicam canens", which I hope is close enough. Cum is definitely better than quando; I think I got swayed by Romance languages there. "X agebat annos" is from this Russian-Latin dictionary ("he was 19 years old = decem et novem agebat annos"), but Lewis & Short say to use it with an ordinal, so I tried to fix it to match their quote from Cicero. Multas gratias tibi ago!

message: Salve! Ad locutiones aliquas addo commentariolum, sicut tu optasti:
aliquo vexatus: vis dicere ab aliquo <sc. homine> aut aliqua re vexatus? - unum conditorem theatri Russici: nisi vis dicere unum et unicum conditorem, auctores boni,  utentes  unus/a/um, solent dicere unum ex/de conditoribus ... - pereregrinandum perrexit: pergere cum infinitivo coniungi solet: peregrinari perrexit - heredi introductus est: fortasse melius ad heredem (vel: heredi praesentatus est?) - pro quindecim annos agens dici solet sextum decimum annum agens. - Bavarese (disputatio) 11:23, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve amice Bavariensis! Commentarii tua utilissima sunt, et mutationes feci. Gratias tibi ago. Vale, Lesgles (disputatio) 19:25, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  paucae adnotationes
Disputatio:Amiralis

message: Estne "amiralis" forma adiectiva nominis "amir" vel "emir"? --Xaverius 21:20, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

message: Cur dicimus verbum "phylarchus" Latinitatis purae redolere? Est enim verbum Graecum mutuatum. Si de rebus Arabicus vel Islamicis loquimur, nulla ratione verbum Graecum verbo Arabico praeferendum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse melius sit "Latinitas classica" vel "antiqua", propter usum Ciceronis. Vide Disputatio:Phylarchiarum Arabicarum Confoederatio. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:35, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylarchus
Disputatio:Heidelberga

message: Amici, gratias vobis agam, si explanationem istius vocis (videatis quaeso supra) praebueritis. - Bavarese (disputatio) 16:49, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Non necesse est, mi Bavarese, capitulum non re vera Latine scriptum, ad Heidelbergam Latine describendam haud utilem, retinere. Originem nescio, sed mihi videtur capitulum omne ab aliquo fere vandalico scriptum, qui quattuor nexus externos in Vicipaediam nostram inserere voluit. Ergo statim deleo: sed si quis melius intellegit, restituere potest! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:33, 17 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospes vias
Disputatio:Fastigium (architectura)

message: Hello. This article is about gables. My question is: do you think we should move this article to the name fastigium of the golden age of Latin? -- Donatello (disputatio) 18:56, 18 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: A fastigium is not a gable (enclosing wall of a gable roof). Rather the fastigium is the top (or ridge) of a roof (any roof having a ridge including a gable roof).  The two terms are not synonymous. In general a fastigium is the highest point or summit of something, could even be a natural thing like a mountain.--118.160.19.93 09:11, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassell's tells English-speakers cultivating a classical style to translate 'gable' as fastigium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:38, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, Lewis & Short agrees with Cassell, making "the top of a gable, gable-end, pediment" the first historical meaning of fastigium. I agree with Donatello, "latus brevius" is not a good term for us to use here: it's too vague. We could say "Fastigium (architectura)" to help with disambiguation, since, as the anonymous says, it can refer to summits elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:46, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Anna Fastigiorum Viridum? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:00, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes on second thought given your comments, I agree that fastigium is a good translation.--118.160.19.93 18:55, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I'll move now to Fastigium (architectura). -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:44, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :::::::I'll also copy this discussion to it's discussion page. -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:48, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  Latus brevius <small>(''copied from the taberna'')</small>
Disputatio:Verona

message: Paginam auxi et partim refeci. Nexus nullos removi (nisi intervicios, quia nexus intervicios intra textum aegre accipimus). Insignia nomismatum &c. ad partem dextram, supra capsam, imposui ne textum interrumpent. Plura addere volo de historia, de monumentis &c. An usque adhuc bene feci? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:21, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perbene fecisti, Andrea! Insignibus istis patrioticis (quae lectori vulgari nihil significant) — si istis opus sit — locum optimum, pulchrum profecto, assignasti. Neander (disputatio) 12:33, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paginam auxi et partim refeci
Disputatio:Locutorium

message: Prīmō ēmendātiō in "simul" placebat - sed tōta sententia mānserat incompta: "ut colloquio per litteras sed simul fruantur" - quid est "colloquium simul"? vel quid "simul frui"? nōnne "simul ac conveniunt" ?? Pendēbam aliquantīsper ("ūnā" vix melius vidēbātur) deinde ad "theodiscismum" ;) (vērēne est?) "ūnō eōdemque tempore" trānsiī, ut dēmum "ūnō tempore" scrīpserim, quam cōniūnctiōnem etiam Cicerō saepe est ūsus: Loci epistulārum "Ad Atticum". Quod fortāsse aptius, sed minus accūrātē dictum - "nūllā/sine ūllā (temporis) dīlātiōne"? Quid cēnsētis? 188.194.19.55 12:45, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "sine ullis dilationibus" nunc scrīpsī: plūrāliter, quia nōn dē singulā sed dē plūribus dīlātiōnibus agitur, velut in epistulārum commerciō. 188.194.18.187 06:47, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  potius "ūnō tempore" quam "simul" scrībāmus 

message: Unde autem nunc temporis fontīs nōminum sūmāmus? SCHOLAe scīlicet scrīptōrium anteā LOCUTORIUM īnscrībēbātur - num "sīve scrīptōrium" addāmus? Nunc temporis, inquam, cum ūsus fīrmus nōndum sit. Īn SCHOLĀ, cuius sodālis sum, "scrīptōrium" iam dīcī adsolet. Mihi etiam "garrībulum" secundum "vestībulum" placet, sed nūsquam vel audīvī vel lēgī :). Est quaedam compīlātiō Lexicī Recentis Latīnitātis atque Lexicī Auxiliāris Chrīstiānī Helferī, quam exarat Austriacus quīdam: Is, quī sē "cōnfectōrem laterum Latīnōrum" etiam aliquot verba fingere cōnfitētur, sē sub huius annī fīnem ēditiōnem proximam praestātūrum dīcit . 
Hanc exspectēmus, nī forte aliunde auxilium vēnerit(velut illinc?(proximē 2004ō renovātum) vel illinc; sub illō "Parvo Verborum Novatorum lexico" legitur: "Verba novata magnam partem depromuntur ex operoso ópere cui títulus Léxicon Recentis Latinitatis cura et stúdio Óperis Fundati «Latínitas» ante áliquot annos foras dato." Proptereā, num in ipsō quid reperiātur dubitō. Hīs proximīs septimānīs ā parentibus exemplum meum Theodiscō-Latīnum arcessam - in proximum valēte :) ).
188.194.19.55 12:45, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fontēs nōminum nūllī esse videntur :)
Disputatio:Sintoismus

message: Salve Iacobus. Could I ask what is the issue with this? :
Ab 1868 usque 1945, Shinto momento est subiecta ex civitate et imperium cultum fanorum adhibuit causa gubernandi fidei pro gentem aedificandis gentibus. 
It was meant to say, form 1868 to 1945, Shinto was subject to influence from the state and government which employed the worship of shrines to control the faith to build nationalism. I obviously made a mistake with 'gentem'. Is there anything else? Jondel (disputatio) 13:50, 24 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but no more time today. The English is rather ham-handed and may want rethinking. For 'to build nationalism', perhaps ad confirmandam nationalismum or an ut clause. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:04, 24 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok. Lets work on this some other time.I will study that nationalismus.Jondel (disputatio) 14:11, 24 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification
Disputatio Categoriae:Dei ficti

message: "Dei ficti"? Sunt tum Cthulhu aut Macaronoteras Volatile fictiores quam Iovis at Sivus? Fortasse nomen categoriae novum dandum est... :Categoria:Dei in historiis fictionis?--Xaverius 09:40, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Praeterea, sunt qui nobis suadeant omnes deos esse fictos; ergo categoriam "Dei in historiis fictis" esse eandem categoriam ac "Dei"! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:48, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte, Iacobe! Sub arbore categoriarum nostrarum dei humanarum religionum "Res opinabiles" esse debent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita! Sed de nomine huius categoriae, quae est de deis in litteris aut mythishoriis, nomen novum censeo esse creandum.--Xaverius 12:26, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Sunt qui deos religionis credant. Dei ficti sunt eo consilio creati(ob iocum vel ut pars fabularum ). This category is for those 'gods' intentionaly created, as a parody or as a part of their fiction. This is opposed to gods whom people believed were real and have faith in and usually have an established religion.Jondel (disputatio) 13:15, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, I don't think this title is seriously misleading -- we know what we mean, and it might be difficult to say it more clearly even with a lot more words. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok. These are good topics for a debate, but this site really is for encyclopedic things (and in latin of course). There really are good forums for those debates , e.g check out facebook. You can do this in latin. Abeundum mihi est. Sorry for being a killjoy. Jondel (disputatio) 13:30, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Wow, easy everyone... I just wanted to underline that "dei ficti" means "fake gods", and that perhaps what we wanted is "gods in literature", "gods in fiction". Andrew noster mentioned that the name is not that misleading, so it was perhaps my impression on the title.--Xaverius 13:36, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Xaverius's point is well taken. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 15 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
I apologize. It seemed like 'Are Cthulhu or the Spaghetti monster more made up than Shiva or Jove.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:44, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

text: Is that a question that Vicipaedia can answer? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 15 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Dei ficti
Disputatio:Ludovicus Carroll

message: Apud How 8 Famous Writers Chose Their Pen Names, legimus: "Charles Lutwidge Dodgson . . . adopted his pen name in 1856 because, according to the Lewis Carroll Society of North America, he was modest and wanted to maintain the privacy of his personal life. When letters addressed to Carroll arrived at Dodgson’s offices at Oxford, he would refuse them to maintain deniability. Dodgson came up with the alias by Latinizing Charles Lutwidge into Carolus Ludovicus, loosely Anglicizing that into Carroll Lewis and then changing their order. It was chosen by his publisher from a list of several possible pen names." Nexus hodie, 25 Iunii 2013, observatus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:40, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but it doesn't mean we should move: his name is given as "Ludovicus Carroll" on Latin title pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:51, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fons nominis
Disputatio:Derria

message: Non dico "Derae" errorem esse, sed fontem interretialem C. T. Martin haud optimum esse repperi. "Derria" in fonte quem citavi aliisque legitur: cf. etiam verba adiectiva "Derrienus" et "Derriensis". An movere oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio ego. Et apud Hofmannum lego "Deria, seu Derria". Lesgles (disputatio) 19:18, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias ago. Aliis interdum non disputantibus, movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Bibliotheca Nationalis Centralis Florentina

message: Nomen Latinizavi sicut in aliis linguis variis fit (sed redirectio e nomine Italiano manet). De anno bibliothecae conditae possumus multis modis constituere, et licet, si necesse sit, duos aut plures annos decernere.
Aut in hac pagina aut in alia oportet de antiqua bibliotheca Magliabechiana disserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Florence doesn't stand at the geographic center of Italy, the word Central in the name National Central Library (Florence) can't mean 'centrally located'. Instead, it's sense must be more like that of 'main, chief, cardinal, principal, prime, primary, first, foremost, uppermost, paramount, most important' (or even 'pivotal, axial, key, focal, basic, basal, fundamental, essential, indispensable, vital'), all of which may have more precisely apter Latin counterparts than centralis. Perhaps: Summa Bibliotheca Civitatis Florentina ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:44, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :You're quite right about English main: that is (according to my Italian dictionary) a possible sense of centrale, e.g. with railway stations. If with them, why not with libraries? So, conceivably, principalis, a logical but not grammatical superlative. I feel that to use "summa", a real and grammatical superlative, would be to over-translate. [Added later: a superlative just won't work, because there is another equally "nazionale centrale" library in Rome. But a city can have several main railway stations, so I suppose a country can have two "centrale" libraries.]

text: :Don't let's trip into "Civitatis", though: that just radiates ambiguity. Like it or not, in this nationalistic age, we need "nationalis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:04, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Civitatis here = 'of the state'. Nationalis is problematic, referring, as it does, to 'a tribe, race, people, esp. uncivilized' (Cassell's), as its Spanish descendant is seen in the full & formal name of the Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, 'the Plurinational State of Bolivia'—a single civitas, incorporating multiple nationes. IacobusAmor (disputatio)
thread_title:  De nomine et anno
Disputatio:Tabularium Foederale Meteorologiae et Climatologiae

message: Sunt errores typographicos duo (Insti[tu]tum; Climatologia[e]que). Movere igitur oportet, sed primum de nomine statuere. In linguis nativis non iam est istituto sed ufficio, office, Amt. In linguis nativis non est Helveticum sed Foederale. Atque in omnibus linguis nomen usitatius est neologismus brevis compositus: MeteoSvizzera, MeteoSchweiz, MétéoSuisse, et Anglice per barbarismum MeteoSwiss. Apud it:wiki nomen haud officiale imponitur, ":it:Istituto Svizzero di Meteorologia".  Quid a nobis faciendum est? An licet MeteoHelvetia creare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglice = Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology; ergo fortasse Foederale Meteorologiae Climatologiaeque Tabularium, or if, as Neander suggests, titles shouldn't use hyperbaton, Tabularium Foederale Meteorologiae et Climatologiae ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago. Gaudens consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:53, 2 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gaudium est proprietas admirabilis, magnopere a philosophis commendata! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:11, 2 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Augusta Taurinorum

message: Nomen classicum "Augusta Taurinorum" in multis dictionariis et encyclopaediis reperitur: in pagina ipsa citantur Tabula Imperii Romani, Der kleine Pauly, Hofmannus. Nomen sollemne (multo rarius usitatum) fuit "Colonia Iulia Augusta Taurinorum". Mihi videtur nomen "Iulia Augusta Taurinorum" a fere nullis adhibetur. An recte distinxi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 2 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine 

message: Imago supremum paginae urbis natalis meae molem Antonellianam depingens ab usore Eccekevin permutata est. Imago substituens multipartita mihi minus placet. Quales sunt aestimationes aliorum? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:42, 11 Maii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutationem reverti, mi Bis-Taurine. Mea mente tales imagines haud encyclopaedicae sunt, praesertim quando rubricae absunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:04, 12 Maii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haud encyclopaedicae? Hae imagines sunt prima pictura (multipartita) in vicipaediis Anglica, Arabica, Bengalica, Coreanica, Francogallica, Graeca, Haussana, Hebraica, Hispanica, Mandarinica, Nipponica, Portugallica, Russica, Theodisca! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:22, 12 Maii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Andreas recte dicit; in talibus imaginibus unaquaeque pars explicanda est, — quod nunquam fit, — et sine explicationibus vanae et molestae sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:37, 12 Maii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imago suprema permutata
Disputatio:Gerontius (episcopus Mediolanensis)

message: Si res veras de:wiki refert (primum archiepiscopum fuisse Thomam, 755-783), Gerontius fuerit episcopus. Textum mutabo: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed vide sententiam primam in his vicis:
replies: text: :en: Gerontius (Italian: Geronzio) was Archbishop of Milan from 462 to 465.

text: :it: Geronzio (... – Milano, 465) fu arcivescovo di Milano dal 462 fino alla sua morte.

text: :ru: Геро́нтий (лат. Gerontius, итал. Geronzio; умер 5 мая 465) — святой архиепископ Миланский с 462 по 465 год.

text: Fortasse episcopus Mediolanensis illis temporibus fuit pro archiepiscopo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:14, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::??? In de legimus:
replies: text: :::Liste der Erzbischöfe von Mailand . . .
replies: text: :::400 bis 800

text: :::St. Venerius, ca. 400 bis ca. 408

text: :::St. Marolus, ca. 408 bis ca. 423

text: :::St. Martinianus, ca. 423 bis ca. 435

text: :::St. Glycerius, 436-438

text: :::St. Lazarus, ca. 440 bis ca. 449

text: :::St. Eusebius, ca. 449 bis ca. 462

text: :::St. Gerontius, ca. 462 bis ca. 465

text: ::??? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:17, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oportet legere usque ad annum 755, mi amice ...

text: :::An Germani recte dicunt, nescio. Sed pellucidum est Anglos incertos esse, quia titulum "Bishop of Milan" sed textum "archbishop of Milan" habent. Si certiores fieri volumus, necesse erit fontem extravicipaedianum reperire. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

text: :::Veniam peto ob summarium meum. Haud "Latinitatis causa" movi ab "(episcopus Mediolani)" ad "(episcopus Mediolanensis)" sed causa morum episcopalium. Fere semper se nuncupant "episcopos + adiectivum", rarissime "episcopos + genetivum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Antifragile (liber)

message: ғʀᴀɢɪʟᴇs ad fragiles etc. mutavi, sed librum non legi, forsitan de causa peculiare sic scriptum est? Si veras maiusculas parvas optamus, formulá verbum uti possumus, sic: fragiles. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:03, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Scriptioni cursivae alii sunt usús. Veram maiuscularum parvarum faciendarum rationem nesciebam. Pro bono consilio tibi gratias ago.Neander (disputatio) 19:17, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, aut alio modo VERBUM, sic: FRAGILES. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Et tibi gratias ago. Hanc quidem rationem sciebam, sed aliquo horrore simplicitatis adductus tortuosae viae me dedi. Neander (disputatio) 19:17, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cur litterae speciales?
Disputatio:Pyramides Gizenses

message: The 1000 Pages list has the "Giza Pyramids," which seems sensible enough, but there has been some debate going on about whether "Giza Necropolis" is the same thing or not.  Many WP versions, including English, only have one article, but Wikidata has two items.  Until last 30 June, our Necropolis Gizensis was attached to the WD entry named on the 1000-page list, but then someone (an anonymous IP, no less), presumably trying to be helpful, moved it -- not for the first time.  I don't think we need two pages unless someone's going to add a lot of detail here, but I'm not interested in playing Edit War in WD.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:37, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The list at Meta has gone back to our Necropolis Gizensis rather than this item, so anyone considering writing about pyramids should try that one rather than this one.  Sigh.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:55, 9 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :That's interesting about the anonymous move on 30 June. But, anyway, if the aim was to affect our rating compared with someone else's, it would only ever work temporarily.

text: :I must say I agreed with your judgment that we really don't need -- no encyclopedia needs -- two general pages on this subject. One on each pyramid, quite possibly. One on all the pyramid-shaped monuments, and another on all the monuments of whatever shape, is dubious (I think). Forking of this kind is a typical event on Wikipedias, and will evidently sometimes be difficult for Wikidata to handle. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 9 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this is doing here
Disputatio:Dioeceses Italicae Ecclesiae Catholicae

message: Italianae recte Italicae ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:18, 6 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi consentio. Nisi fallor, nos verbo "Italianus" de lingua utimur, suadente Neandro, quia hoc utile est ad linguam recentiorem Italianam et linguas antiquas Italicas distinguendas. Pro omnibus rebus non-linguisticis (e.g. politicis, ecclesiasticis, pedeludicis, ...) verbum adiectivum "Italicus" nobis liberum manet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 7 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Huius distinctionis sic recordor quoque. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 7 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Rhetogenes Caraunius

message: Incertus sum. An quis fontem antiquum citare potest? Liber nubeculatus re vera exstat, sed ab auctore ipso divulgatus (vide exemplar Google Books). Vide etiam Pindusa ab eodem usore creata. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veritas aut fictio?