lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Regulus (Saint-Exupéry)

message: Xaverius in summario dixit: "and still, not convinced about "regulus" which is petty king rather than little prince".
replies: text: Ita, sed verbum Francogallicum, minime Anglicum, convertimus. Francogallice prince interdum "filius regis" sonat, interdum "rex". Hunc librum non habeo: non memini an hic heros patrem habuit qui rex fuit necne. Fortasse le petit prince ipse imperabat? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Regulus mihi videtur non brevis vel parvus rex sed pusillus rex, et Apianus dixit duces permultos celtiberorum non reges ser regulos esse; puto duces celtiberorum tam longos quam alios fuisse.--Xaverius 09:27, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versio
Disputatio:Gulielmus Thomson, baro Kelvinus

message: I changed "Guilielmus" to our more usual "Gulielmus". Google doesn't support the declined form "Kelvinis" so I changed to "Kelvin". Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
===Just a question===
Are we writing for readers, or for our new informational overlords?
replies: text: If you're trying to say that you have evidence for "Kelvin -is" , that didn't come out quite right ... Just cite a reliable source and you, single-handed, will defeat Google. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Are we writing for readers, or for our new informational overlords?
replies: text: If you're trying to say that you have evidence for "Kelvin -is" , that didn't come out quite right ... Just cite a reliable source and you, single-handed, will defeat Google. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question
Disputatio:Gas

message: Quare "gasium" non "gas" an quidem "vapor" tantum? Volo proponere hanc paginam ad "gas (-is)" moveri.Tergum violinae 21:38, 5 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erravi. Rationem habes. Tergum. Vide Google Books: Lectures on the Study of Language By Hanns Oertel
replies: text: :Vide etiam Disputatio:Carbonium --Iustinus 01:02, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::As for the declension of gas, what caseforms did van Helmont use? Is it true that he invented it as a derivative of Chaos? If so, it may be relevant that Chaos (according to Cassell's) has only three attested forms: the nominative, an identical accusative, and the ablative chao. If he didn't offer caseforms for it, we'd presumably be left with gas for nom. & acc., and gaso for abl., and nothing else. IacobusAmor 01:13, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::If I'm not mistaken he treated it as indeclinable (which is why gasium is more common now). Nota bene, van Helmont was Dutch, in which gas and chaos sound much more similar. --Iustinus 02:05, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I can confirm that. In standard Dutch 'g' and 'ch' are pronounced alike (like 'ch' in Scottish 'loch'). --Fabullus 15:39, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::If it's well attested, though, perhaps we should use a declinable form in other pages? I've noticed a lot of indeclinable gas around, and it's a bit clunky, no? --Ioscius∞ 23:34, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de titulo

message: ::::::Nuper mutavi vocabulum "gazatae" in re de Editha Stein. Illa et soror in Auschwitz gase interfectae sunt. Quomodo Latine dicamus "to gas" et "gas chamber". Scio haec horribilia esse, sed sunt multae res de castris extermiationis et de victimis nazistarum. Propono "gasiare" aut "gasificare" et "camera ad captivos gasiandos apta" quae prolixior videtur quam utilis, aut simpliciter "camera gasiationis". Tergum violinae 15:05, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Gasarium? IacobusAmor 15:09, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: gazatae

message: If it's well attested, though, perhaps we should use a declinable form in other pages? I've noticed a lot of indeclinable gas around, and it's a bit clunky, no? --Ioscius∞ 23:34, 25 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Si exstat nomen declinabile, utamur! Mihi quidem magis placet gas (-is) quam gasium (-ii) quia illud est formae primae Helmontii similius quam hoc. --Fabullus 08:45, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Omnino consentio. Vultne etiam quis sententiam dare? --Ioscius∞ 11:18, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  declinabilis?
Disputatio:Eduardus Gibbon

message: Decadentiae? Are you sure? A present participle? That doesnt seem right, shouldnt it be a gerund, like...decadenti? --CeleritasSoni 00:43, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a noun there: the decline. It does not appear in my dictionaries, though.--Xaverius 00:48, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

text: Plus, the present participle would be (de)cadens, -ntis, which cannot decline as *decadentia.--Xaverius 00:50, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :The only word that Cassell's offers for 'decline' (substantive) is deminutio. IacobusAmor 01:15, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Decline might be rendered as occasus. And instead of lapsus, you might consider excidium. --Neander 02:13, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, excidium was Gildas's word for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:35, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

text: :::Ooh, that's cool if 'decline' can be occasus—because occasus can also be 'the west', and so then Spengler's book The Decline of the West (Der Untergang des Abendlandes) could be Occasus Occasus, something like Album Album for the Beatles' "White Album," in a silly sort of way. ;) IacobusAmor 04:46, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 7. Lipsiae 1907, p. 824 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis
Disputatio:Cole Porter

message: Suadeo Cole Porter, minime Coelius. Cole non est praenomen traditionale. In hac familia Cole fuit gentilicium matris. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:54, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! Sed ferunt "Old King Cole" in carmine puerili alium non esse nisi antiquum Regem Britannicum "Coelium" qui sedem Camoloduni habebat! Tergum violinae 11:01, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, sed non fuit avus "Coelii Porter"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sic. Paginam move. Estne pagina de Nathanael Rege Coelio? Tergum violinae 11:10, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:13, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:How I Met Your Mother

message: 'tua' et non 'vos'? Nooj 00:42, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

message: Ita Ego Mater Vos Conveni Anglice = 'Thus I the Mother Met You All'. IacobusAmor 01:00, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "How I Met Your Mother" might be in Latin "Quomodo matri tuae occurrerim". Given that the meeting was quite accidental, the right verb to use is occurro (+ dative). But of course, if the meeting had been agreed upon, convenio is ok. Titles that are in the form of a question require that the predicate verb be in the subjunctive mood (in the present case, perfect subjunctive). --Neander 01:53, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Those points are well taken, but "How I met your mother" isn't a question: it's an extended noun-phrase, which can be rephrased "The means by which I met your mother." A question using most of the original words might be "How did I meet your mother?" IacobusAmor 01:59, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Maybe I wasn't accurate enough. When saying that "How I met your mother" is a question, I meant it is an indirect question. The way I construed (and still tend to construe) the title is somehow "[The sitcom tells] how I met your mother" = "[Fabula narrat] quomodo matri tuae occurrerim". But as a non-native, I can't claim authority in matters English. --Neander 02:34, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: My intention in using the phrase "Ita Ego Mater Vos Conveni" (although you're right, it was Matrem... and Vestra... I couldn't find the adjective form of Vos...) was "In This Way I Met Your Mother". Apparently, I don't know as many nuances of Latin as you all do. I apologize. Angelica K 13:18, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Is it really an indirect question and not just a statement? Isn't it (in this case) "How" = "in this way"? Could it be Quomodo matrem vestram inveniam (something)?--Xaverius 13:31, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Scott Joplin

message: This will be news to many. Alert the media! IacobusAmor 13:43, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ....okay, I was a little bit cheeky there. Sorry. (But there is a reason you're not "JacobusAmor".) Angelica K 13:46, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, there's a reason: "Iacobus" is not the surname here. IacobusAmor 13:59, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Putavi regulam hic esse quia nomina gentilicia sicut stant, cum litteris alienis et notis diacriticis, semper adhibenda sunt. Tergum violinae 13:54, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Probe dicis, amice. IacobusAmor 13:59, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yet sometimes we use double standards in this respect. Litterae alienae et notae diacriticae are not touched in Latin-alphabet surnames, but they are changed and removed in transliterated non-Latin-alphabet surnames. Joplin --> Ioplin has been forbidden, but it is actually a very small change compared to the allowed Juščenko --> Iuscenco. --Gabriel Svoboda 14:23, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yes, that's a seeming inconsistency; if the word had come directly from the Roman alphabet, it might have been preserved (partly) intact, as Juscenko. IacobusAmor 14:32, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Boys and girls, we don't use the letter J on Wikipedia. Even if it's in your name"
Disputatio:Eartha Kitt

message: A joke's a joke, but eventually, to most people, we look ridiculous if we think we can translate what can't be translated. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:36, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... But I have to admit that to most people we Vicipaedians look a little ridiculous anyway. And who cares? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:40, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tsc. Scripturus eram rem de Gemmoso Ilice etiam! Hanc move si velis. Conor caeruleare omnes nexus rubros in pagina de iaze.Tergum violinae 22:51, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::One shouldn't be surprised if Terra is off base, and the name Eartha is merely a playful set of syllables, which could just as well have been spelled Urtha, and is perhaps related to Aretha and urethra, not unlike the way that Oprah (as in Winfrey) seems related to Orpah (as in the Bible). IacobusAmor 23:09, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks for moving it, T. Violinae. But I must admit "Terra Kitt" was one of the more amusing of our Latin names. Better than Britannia Spears, any day. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::True, though I still think Britney would regularly become Britneia, just as Sydney becomes Sydneium. IacobusAmor 21:09, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Henricus S. Truman

message: Certe nomen non fuit Haroldus, sed quid est melius: Henricus vel Harrius (sicut Harrius Potter)? IacobusAmor 04:43, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Harry originally was a medieval English version of Henry, though in more modern times it is used as a diminutive for both Harry and (more often) Harold. Henricus and Haroldus are thus both acceptable Latinizations of his name. As with Harrius Potter, though that title is well attested, it is nevertheless a bad translation.  -Kedemus 4 Aperilis 2010 04:14 UTC
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Othello

message: Why is everybody called "-us"? What was wrong with their names ending in O? It's perfectly legit to have a Brabantio or Cassio; we don't need Iagus. [Angelica]
replies: text: These Shakespeare articles were all written years ago, before Vicipaedia had a proper style (or, at least, if it had one, they don't follow it). If you feel like improving them, be bold. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It wouldn't be surprising if Latin names of some of the famous characters in Shakespeare were attested, but they might be hard to find! IacobusAmor 13:41, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, that's true. It seems probable that translations of some of these plays appeared in Latin once upon a time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: Versionem Latinam non reperio. Si re vera nulla versio exstat, debemus aut ad Othello (Shakesperius) aut ad Othello the Moor of Venice movere; titulos enim librorum nos non vertimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Scio quem rogemus. Dr. Kent Cartwright, et scholar operis Shakesperiani et linguae Latinae. Nuntium electronicum ad eum mittam. --Ioscius  ∞ 13:55, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse Othellus est nomen "diminutivum" ex Ottone factum; vide etiam Othonem. IacobusAmor 14:41, 23 Martii 2010 (UTC)

text: Imagino opera de Shakespeare esse 'casus specialis'. Linguae Romanicae eum conuertunt, e.g., et constatur pars culturae communis Europaeanae. Nomen Othellus est quoque (ut Iacobus arguit) nomen quid in Latina facere potest. Illis dictis, uersiones Latine Shakespeare probabiliter factae est, et procedamus nos ut si. Pantocrator 02:09, 24 Martii 2010 (UTC)
Secundum Lexicon nominum virorum et mulierum, scribendum est nomen "Othellus."  Sic porro pergit Carolus Egger, auctor lexici illius:

text: Nomen non invenitur in veteribus litterarum monumentis, sed est a V. Shakespeare, scaenicarum fabularum scriptore uberrimo, factum.  Invaluit autem maxime postquam Iosephus Verdi drama musicum eo nomine (Otello) inscripsit.  Quamvis, ut supra dictum est, nomen a poeta Britanno illo sit novatum, conici tamen licet nomen Ottonis cum Italica terminatione -ello, qua blande verbum aliquod profertur, menti eius esse obversatum.  Cum autem haec origo incerta sit, aptius ponitur ipsum nomen Othello, quo usus est V. Shakespeare, idque ad sermonem Latinum accommodatum.
Cf. Caroli Egger Lexicon nominum virorum et mulierum (Romae, a Societate Libraria "Studium": 1963º): p. 189a.
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Diango Reinhardt

message: De: "Formula:Cite book His first name was not "Jean-Baptiste" as often cited. ↑ pronounced Formula:Pronounced."—To make these things work in Vicipaedia, you have to clean up the mess the people at en: have made. IacobusAmor 16:14, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nescio quomodo fiat!
replies: text: ::Well,
replies: text: :::

text: ::has to be rewritten as something like
replies: text: :::Michael Dregni, The Life and Music of a Gypsy Legend (Oxoniae: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 4–5).

text: ::but things like that may be easier to read if they're "(Dregni 2004:4–5)" in the text and
replies: text: :::Dregni, Michael. 2004. The Life and Music of a Gypsy Legend. Oxoniae: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516752-X.

text: ::in the fontes section. In traditional scholarship, ISBN info (and the like) does not appear in footnotes, but who knows what the folks over in en: are thinking? IacobusAmor 16:23, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formulas borrowed from en:
Disputatio:Sacramenta Argentoratensia

message: This looks incorrect: ero sicut homo per drictum debet
. I think there's a typographical error. Could someone who can produce Latin (rather than just read it) make the correction. Interlingua 13:59, 14 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The words quoted here are no longer in the article, so I guess someone made the correction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in translation?

message: I don't think we have a source for "Sacramenta Argentariae".  "Argentaria" is indeed a name offered by Nithard for Strasbourg, but the usual name for the city is "Argentoratum". So far as I can see on Google, only Wikipedia mirrors use the forms "Sacramenta Argentaria" (our original) and "Sacramenta Argentariae" (our revised attempt). But it isn't easy to find an alternative in use in Latin. I would expect "sacramenta Argentoratensia", and I can find this form once here, page 270 (used by a good author), but maybe there are other possibilities I haven't thought of. Any suggestions? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the same source is cited in this snippet. I can also find "sacramenta Strasburgensia" and "sacramenta, quae vocantur, vel iuramenta Argentoratensia". A move to "sacramenta Argentoratensia" sounds reasonable to me. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:31, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: It is a good idea to include both original texts (Germanic and Romance) but I don't know why we have a modern French translation, or what is the source of the "Vulgar Latin translation". If anything, we should offer a classical Latin translation, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations
Disputatio:Matthias (apostolus)

message: Ne confuderis, quaeso, Sanctum Matthiam et Sanctum Matthaeum. Non enim idem apostolus ii sunt.
'nomen idem valet ac oblatus' non intelligo. Explica quaeso!

message: Matthias ille est, qui sortione ducta locum Iudae sibi cepit.
"Oblatus" est versio nominis Matthiae in Linguam Latinam.
Romanus Felix.
thread_title:  Explicatio
Disputatio:Punctum peritiae

message: "Puncta peritia . . . est unitas mensurae quae ututur [=utitur?] in multis RPG ut personae ficticae lusoris per ludum progressum metiri possit." = Anglice: Points a skill . . . is a oneness of measuring that in many RPG uses so that a player's fictitious roles can measure through a progressing game.' We love these puzzles! (Hint: metiri and uti are deponent verbs.) IacobusAmor 13:02, 17 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Punctum peritiae . . . est unitas mensurae quae adhibetur in multis RPG ut lusor personae ficticiae per ludum progressum suum metiri possit." = 'Point of skill . . . is a oneness of measuring that in many RPG is applied so that a player of a fictitious role can measure his (own) advance through a game'. Much better! (But why is RPG undefined and/or unlinked to its definition?) IacobusAmor 14:28, 17 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't have a term for role-playing game which is an RPG.  If the verb to use is a deponent, how are you supposed to say "xxx is used by yyy"?  Or does that not even exist?--FructusMalus 02:29, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That exact statement can't be made using a purely deponent verb. In Latin you might choose a different verb (e.g. "usitatus est, adhibet") or you might make the statement active "yyy uses xxx". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 29 Iunii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Quid significant lemma et definitio?
Disputatio:Museum Nationale Historiae Naturalis (Vasingtonia)

message: Hendrice, mutastis 1846 ad 1910, sed institutum revera est conditum anno 1846. Hoc quod ad verbum instituti (institutum) refert. Si debet ad verbum pars referre, muta quod ad quae. Genders are not to be ignored. IacobusAmor 12:01, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i changed it because the smithsonian institute was founded in 1846, the museum was in 1910 :en:National Museum of Natural History > :en:Smithsonian Institution, Hendricus 17:56, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :But you didn't consider this difference:
replies: text: ::est pars Instituti Smithsoniani, quod constitutum est. = is part of the I.S., which (institution) was set up.

text: ::est pars Instituti Smithsoniani, quae constituta est = is part of the I.S., which (part) was set up.

text: :Now that we know what you were trying to say, I've made the correction for you. IacobusAmor 18:11, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "pars Instituti Smithsoniani, quod Vasingtoniae anno 1910 constitutum est"

message: Anno 1892. Et academiae caput fortasse est praepositus, quamquam titulus Anglice est secretary (Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution). IacobusAmor 13:04, 9 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen Academiae Smithsonianae attestatum
Disputatio:Wilson Pickett

message: Eius nomina in commentario sunt Gulielmianus et Gulielmianuss. Quid est rectius? Et cur non Gulielmus? IacobusAmor 12:21, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Nomen recte est Wilson, quod ergo in Latinum convertere non debemus? IacobusAmor 12:25, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Exitus "-ianus" necnon "-inianus" in nominibus Latinis similis videretur, si non aequus, exitus "-son" in Anglicis. Fortasse licet nos etiam Iacobianum Pollock dicere, exempli gratia.   82.36.94.228 13:30, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Similis videtur, sed secundum Vicipaediae regulis, talia nomina in Latinum non convertimus. IacobusAmor 13:50, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Tum movenda est res?
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Arcus caelestis

message: "Et dicitur iris quasi aeris, id est quod per aera ad terras descendat." Étymologie fausse bien sûr
ça vient de Iris. [Scripsit 88.183.178.237, usor ignotus]
replies: text: Vraiment. Sententiam igitur refecimus. IacobusAmor 13:06, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymologia

message: Tale nomen mihi videtur anglicismum; notam autem habet quod sic dicit "Horatius". Sed non dicit ex qua parte operis Horatii illud nomen est receptum. [03:24, 10 Aprilis 2011‎ 201.214.21.87]
replies: text: It's hardly an Anglicism. I've added some attestations (others are available on the internet). The whole thing needs reworking. The article even lacks a definition, and so is technically not even a stub and should be deleted! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:03, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :You're quite right. And no, it isn't an Anglicism (the Angles didn't even exist under that name when Horace wrote it!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:40, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Apud 'Library of Latin Texts', ubi testimonia per saecula rediguntur, invenio vetustissimum testem Plinium maiorem. Qui habet arcum caelestem in Nat. Hist. 1,1; 12,110; 17,39; 21,41; 37,136, caelestem vero arcum ibidem 11,37; 24,113; 37,22; 37,89. Sequitur Suetonius, qui priorem ordinem habet (Div. Aug. 95,1), item Ammianus Marcellinus (20,11,27) et Isidorus Hisp. in Etymologiis (4,8,13; 16.12.6), apud quem etiam alter ordo invenitur (13,10,1; 16,13,6; 16,24,3; 17,9,9). Seneca philosophus, dum de caelo agit, simpliciter arcum  ponit (Nat. quaest. 1,3,5). Hactenus autorum primi, qui prosaice scripserunt.

text: ::Horatius unus est, qui – in carmine (!) – pluvium ... arcum ponit. Alii poetae Iridem vel Irim habent (Verg. Aen. 4,694; 4,700; 9,2; 9,6; 10,73; Ov. Met. 1,271; 4,480; 11,585, Seneca Oedip. 316; Manilius Astr. 1,713 ...).

text: ::Sunt igitur perquam fidi testes veterrimi, qui arcus caelestes vel caelestes arcus habent. Apud poetas Iris praevalet, pluvius arcus singularis tantum legitur. Quid obstat, quominus paginae titulus sit arcus caelestis? Laurentianus (disputatio) 19:38, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Nihil obstetit :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 12 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcus pluvius?
Disputatio:Motus animi

message: Is motus animi (motion/disturbance of the mind) right? or is it better translated as animi affectus (disposition/state of the mind)? It seems Spinoza called emotions affectus ...--71.87.208.246 13:02, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete definition of emotion in Cassell's is: "animi motus (-ūs), or adfectus (-ūs), or commotio or concitatio," so all four possibilities are Classical. Spinoza was a latecomer to the vocabulary, but using just plain adfectus for animi adfectus would seem to be fully in keeping with the way languages work; also, it leads directly to the modern English noun affect. IacobusAmor 13:18, 18 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It seems better to keep these concepts separate. For "affect," see here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:00, 30 Decembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Motus animi