lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Stephanus Spielberg

message: * +5 (optima) --Alex1011 08:15, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
* +5 (optima) --Marc mage 10:20, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LATINITAS

message: Latine dicitur "dispositor cinematographicus" aut "director flimarum"?--Massimo Macconi 20:45, 9 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Habemus necesse carpere verbum (aut verba) significando "director". Vide etiam hic: Disputatio_Formulae:Pellicula. - Secundus Zephyrus 03:59, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: director

message: Anglice: 'it leaves behind an impression in an admittance forever'. (Hoc aeternum adverbium videtur.) What's it trying to say? Is it NPOV? IacobusAmor 03:16, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh...there's more than just that in the article, as far as POV concerns. I haven't really delved into this article, for some reason (biographies aren't my favorite type of article, I confess), and I should have. You know, at least a little sooner than the 22nd day of the month for which it is pagina... mea maxima culpa... --Ioshus (disp) 03:28, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :mea culpa, I was just trying to translate that sentence from the English Wikipedia, which said: "One of Spielberg's most prominent trademarks is perhaps his use of music by John Williams to add to the visual impact of his scenes and to try and create a lasting picture and sound of the film..." Maybe a better word than aeternum? --Secundus Zephyrus 04:09, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ah, but aeternum impressionem can't be 'lasting picture': the words have different genders and therefore don't relate in Latin as they do in English. Even in English, the matter after scenes reads like "fluff" (it doesn't add anything new), so I'd recommend cutting it. IacobusAmor 09:34, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "aeternum impressionem in admissione relinquit."

message: I thought the Latinitas was OK so I have made it L1. Am I wrong? But I took out " vel Ludimontius". If someone has used that name for him, let's cite it. Otherwise, we don't translate surnames; and anyway it's only in German that the translation works. The article doesn't say anything about the German origin of his name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 21 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludimontius is used inside the article too. --Rafaelgarcia 12:46, 21 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Let's remove the use of "Ludimontius" from the article and change it back to Spielberg. -Kedemus 11/30/07 04:31 UTC
thread_title: Minor edit
Disputatio:Leopoldus I (imperator Sacri Romani Imperii)

message: Necesse est addere disambiguationem:
*Leopoldus I (1640–1705), rex Hungariae (1655–1705) et imperator (1658–1705)
*Leopoldus I (1790–1865), rex Belgarum (1831–1865)
Similiter: Leopoldus II, imperator, et Leopoldus II, rex. IacobusAmor 22:20, 15 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: Leopoldus I (discretiva) and Leopoldus II (discretiva). --Rolandus 22:39, 15 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 12. Lipsiae 1908, p. 422-423 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Maio 2020
Disputatio:Parallelogrammum

message: parallelogrammum! --Alex1011 16:30, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: parallelogrammum, -i aut parallelogramma, -ae? --UV 01:49, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neutrum amici... parallelogramma,-tis.--Ioshus (disp) 02:32, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Aah, gratias tibi ago. --UV 21:27, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

text: :Nexum correxi apud en, it, et es.--Ioshus (disp) 02:36, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Quo modo dicitur "The diagonals bisect each other"?
thread_title: quaestio

message: Parallelogramma mea sententia est verbum graecum quod declinat ut chiliogramma et programma.--Rafaelgarcia 23:46, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed videtur Morgan dixit Paralleogrammum nec Parallelogramma.  Credo Morgan de hoc est incorrectus, quod est verbum graecum et Parallelogrammum est conatus ineptum modernum ad eam latinandam. Ergo dubio et oportet plus investigare.--Rafaelgarcia 23:58, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ut sic sit, verificavi. Vide de Thoma Hobbes et Christinao Hugenius
replies: text: ::*http://books.google.com/books?id=NMELAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA237&dq=parallelogramma

text: ::*http://books.google.com/books?id=yMoEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA457&dq=parallelogrammatis

text: :--Rafaelgarcia 00:04, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thomae tibique consentio, Rafael. Praefero reddere talia neutri generis verba in ~a.--Ioscius (disp) 01:07, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallelogramma
Disputatio:Pompeii (urbs antiqua)

message: Citations!--Usor:206.183.140.244(Disputatio) 14:59, 21 Novembris 2006 
What do you mean? The whole thing is one long Plinian citation?--Ioshus (disp) 21:23, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Nonne placet eam huiusce paginae partem, quae solum ad illos duos Plinios, sed minime ad Vesuvii eruptionem pertineat, delere? - Bavarese (disputatio) 19:56, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Si nullo modo relevat, delere; aut severius abbreviare. Emenda paginam, si tibi placet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Pliniis
Disputatio:Aquae Mattiacae

message: Cum viginti sex fontibus urbi una veterrimarum aquarum est.
Alia lingua, sicut italice, hispanice, anglice, vel russice, possin mihi haec convertere?--Ioshus (disp) 18:11, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paginam retractavi. --Alex1011 19:54, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias, Alex.--Ioshus (disp) 21:25, 21 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Why does it say sunt urbs Germanica? Doesn't "sunt" mean "they are"? And is "Germanica" the right adjective for Germany, isn't the genitive "Germaniae" better? --Kazu89 17:40, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammar is correct, because Aquae is plural, but the result did look strange. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I see! Thanks for the expaination. Now it seems better. --Kazu89 11:14, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Chiefly it's strange because in English (and other languages as well) so many names that are formally plural are grammatically singular.  Still, some names are treated 'normally,' e.g. on en: "The Cayman Islands are" (not 'is') "a British overseas territory..."  (Saying "The Springs of the Mattiaci is a city of Germany", doesn't work so well in English either as it does with 'are'.)  I'm not sure I like the solution "...est nomen urbis" though — it makes it sound like the article is gearing up to be about the name, not the place.  —Mucius Tever 13:28, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Mucius was right, and 9 years later I have made the correction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::What's this discussion about? Verbs are governed by their subjects, not their predicates. A correct English translation of the current definition—Aquae Mattiacae . . . est urbs in Germania sita—is "The city situated in Germany is . . . Aquae Mattiacae." The subject is city. It's bizarre, though, in view of "Civitates Foederatae Americae sunt res publica" and "Pompeii sunt urbs" and "Trilobita sunt classis" and thousands of other articles having this syntax. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Sorry, I meant to write "... sunt urbs ...". Is that OK now? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Je crois que oui! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:36, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?
Disputatio:Color

message: Num, Alex, etiam hanc putas stipulam?--Ioshus (disp) 03:02, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Signum stipulae delevi (-=minus) quod puto nunc magnam paginam esse. --Alex1011 08:03, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Please help to provide interwiki links for these colors. Thanks. --Rolandus 06:52, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)
* Ater 
**(Germanice: dunkel, (glanzlos) schwarz)
**[#707070] Hic est color canus: :de:Grau
* Auratus 
**(Germanice: vergoldet, goldfarben ???)
**[#FFDB58] Hic est :en:Gold (color) vel :en:Mustard (color). :fr:Moutarde (couleur)
* Aureolus
**[#FBEC5D] Hic color est :en:Corn (color)
*  Caesius
** [#BDBBD7]: "Lavender, gray", see: :en:Lavender (color)
*  Coccinus 
**[|#E32636] :en:Alizarin. Germanice Türkischrot, rubrum Turcicum
*  Eburneus 
**(Germanice: elfenbeinfarben ???, Anglice: ivory-colored ???)
** [#FFDEAD] :en:Navajo white
*  Flammeus
**[#FFBF00] :en:Amber (color) :it:Ambra (colore)
*  Fulvus 
**[|#E9967A] Dark salmon, :en:Salmon (color)
*  Furvus 
**[|#704214] est numquam
* Fuscus 
**[#964B00] :en:brown :de:Braun
*  Gilvus 
**[#CDB891] :en:Ecru (colour) shade of yellow; :de:Naturfarben, "shade of brown"
***Hanc paginam mutavi. --Alex1011 12:08, 3 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
*
*  Glaucus 
**[|#2E8B57] :en:Sea green
*  Lividus 
**[|#4682b4] :en:Steel blue
*  Luteus
** [#f4c430 color] :en:Saffron (color)
*  Niveus
** [#F0F8FF] :en:Alice blue
*  Pullus 
**[|#404040] :de:Grau
*  Ravus
**[#C3B091] :en:Khaki (color) :de:Khaki :fr:Kaki (couleur)
*  Roseus
** (Germanice: rosenfarbig, rosenrot, Anglice: :en:Rose (color)
*  Rubicundus
**[|#FF2400] :en:Scarlet (color)
*  Rubidus
**[#b7410e] :en:Rust (color)
*  Rufus
**[#E34234] :it:Vermiglione :en:Vermilion
*  Russus
** [#FF7518] :en:Pumpkin (color)
*  Rutilus
** [#DC143C] :en:Crimson :es:Carmesí :fr:Cramoisi
*  Venetus
** [#4F7942] :en:Fern green
*  Violeus
** [#991199] :en:Violet-eggplant
*  Virens 
**(Germanice: grün(end), grün ???) [#00A86B] :en:Jade (color)
thread_title: Color without interwiki links

message: PONETE OMNIAS LINGVAS, NON "CXLVIII MAGIS"--Manfariel (disputatio) 01:50, 30 Maii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALIAE LINGVAE
Disputatio:Mylae

message: Estne Mylae plurale tantum sicut Athenae et :wikt:Athenae? Ergone: Mylae sunt urbs tertia ...? --Alex1011 11:04, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: --85.1.56.62 11:07, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  idem Pisae?
Disputatio:Rhodus

message: Massimo, abbiamo bisogno di essere coerente. Quasi tutte nostre pagine hanno nomi stranieri in parastesie. Si vorresti fare una proposta che dobbiamo cambiare questo uso, domanda nella Taverna.--Ioshus (disp) 22:14, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: scusa ma era solo per eivtare due parentesi non era molto bello da vedersi--85.1.210.175 06:58, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Di accordo, e non ho creduto che "- Graece Ρόδος, (Rhodos) -" era brutto, solamente che dovevemo essere coerenti.--Ioshus (disp) 16:00, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  parentesi 

message: I moved the page to Rhodos on the basis of Lewis and Short, who say "Rhŏdos (rarely Rhŏdus)", but now I see the OLD has the order "Rhodus (Rod-) -i, f. Also Rhodos." So I would be fine with moving it back. Anyone have a preference or more information? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:53, 21 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Georges, Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch habet "Rhodos u. -us ( ... ) Form -os, Hor. ep. 1, 11, 17 u. 21. Mela 2, 7, 4 (2. § 89). Plin. 2, 202. Ov. met. 7, 365: Form -us, Cic. Planc. 84; ep. 2, 17, 1. Liv. 31, 15, 8 u.a. Plin. 5, 104 u.a.: Nbf. Rhodia, ae, f., Plaut. Curc. 444"--Utilo (disputatio) 09:07, 27 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Rhodos apud poetas et apud Plinium maiorem ter, apud quem etiam Rhodus ter invenitur. Sed nominativus admodum rarus est. Rhodum, forma accusativi, saepissime apud auctores (sicut Plautum, Ciceronem, Vitruvium, Livium, Plinium, Suetonium, Tacitum, etc) invenitur, cum Rhodon accusativus raro et quidem praecipue apud poetas inveniatur. Mea quidem sententià Rhodus forma dignior est, quae apud nos colatur. Neander (disputatio) 14:08, 27 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Vestra igitur auctoritate paginam rursus ad "Rhodus" movi. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:29, 1 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodos/Rhodus
Disputatio:Venetae dialecti

message: Mea encyclopaedia dissimiles notitias de Venetae lingua et dialecto dicit, ergo earum paginae separatae possunt esse.
--131.175.57.10 15:46, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC) Andreas Victor
replies: text: Consentio...non erit ratio bona paginas Lingua Sicula septentrionalis, Lingua Sicula meridionalis, Lingua Sicula occidentalis, etc... Lingua Sicula omnibus satisfacit.--Ioshus (disp) 15:55, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: I was wrong. This should be its own page. Lingua Veneta, and Dialecti Venetici are two different things. One is it's own languages, the other represetns a group of regionally similar variants of standard italian.--Ioshus (disp) 22:52, 4 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: as usual
Disputatio:Deus

message: Proprietates Dei:
# this should not be capitatlized.
# This seems only to be the attributes of the christian god. Most other gods are neither omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.
Whole article needs a rewrite, mea sententia... 
--Ioscius (disp) 13:07, 28 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, blatant christian influence in that, under omniscentia, it lists sinners, wicked men, and sluts as to what god sees. What about, like, you know, normal stuff? I assume dude can see that, too? I don't know, you know, not being omniscient, and hardly believe in it as a possibility for anyone, man or immortal, but I'm pretty sure someone omniscient doesn't just see sinners and whores.--Ioscius (disp) 13:11, 28 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps whoever wrote this thought that this article is about the Christian God, while Deitas is about gods in general. Pantocrator 18:48, 1 Maii 2010 (UTC)

message: Utentes, loquimini latine! Vicipaedia est et Latina lingua nos coniungit. Non utemini Anglicam linguam, ego Italicus sum et sic nos possumus intellegere personas aliarum nationum. Valete!P.S. Potestis etiam translare (en. translate) quod scripsistis Anglice in Latinam linguam--Dave Welf Masters 13:48, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latine
Disputatio:Euclides

message: Heisst das Buch nicht Elementa?  
Isn't the name of the book Elementa?
Heter inte boken Elementa?
Libri nomen estne Elementa?
replies: text: Yes, but this language declines titles freely. Elementa is neuter nominative plural, elementorum neuter genitive plural.--Ioshus (disp) 13:01, 29 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Quomodo, o Vicipaediani, eius nomen Euclides declinatur? INQVIT·M·CAECILIVS·CALLIDVS·ECCE·DISPVTATIO 09:33, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Euclides -em -is -i -e", secundum Charlton T. Lewis, Carolus Short, A Latin dictionary (Oxonii, 1879). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Odyssea

message: Dear LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs, you specified that [ your additions] to this article incorporate material from "Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles". Is that a free source or is it that old that copyright has expired? If no, I'm afraid we cannot keep it here in our encyclopaedia libera.
If it indeed is free of copyright, maybe Vicifons would be a better place for longer passages taken from this book?
Greetings, --UV 00:32, 30 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure that the copyright has expired. It is on project Gutenburg, and there are sections from it in other Latin Wikipedia articles e.g. Hercules. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 08:00, 30 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : Thanks! If it's on Project Gutenberg, then we can be pretty sure that it is safe to use. Greetings, --UV 22:57, 1 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Still remains the issue of whether or not longer passages should be at vicifons or not. I vote they should be.--Ioshus (disp) 23:43, 1 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with Odyssea to judge whether the recent anonymous deletion is a legitimate attempt to pare down the text or not. They removed Liber 10. Could someone knowledgeable look at it?--Rafaelgarcia 01:16, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good point, Rafael: there was no reason for that deletion, so I have reverted. The article is very unbalanced, however. Maybe I'll take a look at it this evening. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 18 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I am (rather late in the day) keeping that promise :) I have taken out the text fron Ritchie, because it is really much too long. I am adding much shorter summaries from the Clarke edition: the Latin isn't always good, being literally translated from the Greek hypotheses, but my aim is to start from these summaries and improve. I hope no one objects? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I agree and think the same should be done at Aeneis. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 28 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles
Disputatio:Penis

message: Pars Linguae Germanicae delevit--Massimo Macconi 18:23, 4 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be titled "Penis"? Isn't "mentula" more of a slang word (especially since it appears mostly in Catullus and Martial)? Also, "penis" is used throughout the article, yet it is called "Mentula". I think "Mentula" should redirect to "Penis". - Secundus Zephyrus 05:35, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Penis was at first a euphemism (glosses mention that it originally meant "tail"), and mentula was, if I'm not mistaken, used by some medical writers even, who of course wanted to call things by their proper names. Mentula is really more rude than slang. Buuuuut, yeah, if I were writing this article, I would have gone with penis. --Iustinus 06:18, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Doesn't mentula just mean "little mind"? Viglulino (disputatio) 01:42, 14 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Maybe, but Lewis and Short don't give a derivation, and the OED says "of unknown origin". Lesgles (disputatio) 21:57, 15 Maii 2014 (UTC)

text: I modified the second sentence to more closely resemble Julius Caesar' quote, "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres." It so closely resembled it that I couldn't help but laugh so I just changed the word order and added an omnis. I think the change was for the best. --SeriousNiger 02:45, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Rideo! -- Secundus Zephyrus 03:38, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ego quoque...--Ioscius (disp) 04:40, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Reading the discussion above, I propose a move to penis, which seems to be the more unmarked classical word. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:57, 15 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nemine contradicente, paginam movi. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:47, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Iecur

message: Iectur? In dictionariis quae sunt mihi, verbum est iecur, non iectur. IacobusAmor 13:56, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find iectur anywhere, either...--Ioshus (disp) 14:41, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

message: Campanini - Carboni, Vocabolario Latino - Italiano ; Italiano - Latino, Torino 1961 voce fegato sed Langenscheidt Latine /Germanice Iecur--Massimo Macconi 14:38, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons
Disputatio:Ren

message: Aiunt L&S: "Sing. rēn, not used." IacobusAmor 14:26, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, sed in encyclopaedia, nonne recte singularem formam tenere?--Ioscius (disp) 15:39, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, et medicis hodiernis certe necesse est de renibus singulis loqui. Latinitatis classicae mutatio minima videtur. --Gabriel Svoboda 16:00, 21 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de numero lemmatis

message: Nescio ut transducere (imago renis: columna renalis Bertini) Qui iuvat? Gratias. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:55, 12 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentio sit 'Exuperius Iosephus Bertin'. Tibi?--Jondel (disputatio) 23:28, 12 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Placet mihi - gratias, Jondel! Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:16, 13 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Mihi etiam placet!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:59, 14 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exupère Joseph Bertin -> in lingua latina?
Disputatio:Lingua Hispanica

message: I translated all the countries'name in latin, please do not delete my work. If you have to add new countries or make some changes, please do it from my version. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 10:48, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
About the "vocabularium", only 70% percent of them come from Latin, the other 30% are mainly from Arabian, Nahuatl (and other Amerindian languages), French, English and Germanic words (some of them come from modern German and most of them from the language of the Visigothic people).  Arabian influence comes from the Morish Spain.  A 95% as said on the article corresponds more to Italian.  If there are no objections I will correct it.  Herr Thor Hdz 
replies: text: Yes, I feel sure you are nearer the truth! But it all depends how you count. Therefore, I suggest you correct the statement, and, just as important, cite a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 3 Martii 2009 (UTC)
___
lingva hispanica? lingva castellana

message: [ http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lingua_Hispanica&diff=1973882&oldid=1942025 Nova errata] recenter introducta sunt et corrigenda. ex+abl non ex+acc; Latine = adverbium non adiectivum; sensu locativo in+abl non in+acc nec in+nom, appellatur petit nom non accusativum, nomen et adiectivum eius eodem casu scribendum, et caetera.--123.192.101.224 13:10, 22 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: nova errata

message: Donatello, amice, mutasti locutionem "ex linguis Arabica, Gothica, Vasconica. . . ." in "ex linguis Arabice, Gothice, Vasconice. . . ." Melius? Re vera? Adverbia nomina substantiva recte petunt? (Similiter in aliis commentariis.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:58, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Iterum, amice, mutasti locutionem "e lingua Gothica antiqua" in "ex Gothice antique." Item: "ex latino" in "a Latine." Re vera? Praepositiones adverbia petunt? Quid est fons huius grammaticae? Nuperrime, praeterea, mutasti locutionem "e lingua Latina" in "ex linguam Latinam." Quid est fons huius grammaticae? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:16, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Salve IacobusAmor!

text: :Ita est.

text: :Linguae in forma adverbialis necesse sunt. Quae "Potes loqueris latine?", "Non, modo loquor Iaponice".

text: :Nomina quae lingua Latina et lingua Iaponica etiam possunt dicuntur, sed modo quando situs recte est,

text: :quae id quae stat in "Origo": "Lingua Hispanica ex linguam Latinam deducitur ..." (id scribebam, ante aliquid alter erat).

text: :Fortasse numquam "re vera" audivi. Quid significat? Verbatim necesse est significare for the true thing?

text: :Donatello (disputatio) 16:40, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Latinitatem in variis rebus nunc correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:31, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Donatello, egomet non sum peritus Latinae linguae, sed puto formam advervialem linguarum non formam usitatam esse. Etiam censeo formas adiectivales fortasse oportunissimas esse.--Xaverius 17:56, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatica
Disputatio:Somali

message: Are we really to have pages on Americanus, Anglicus, Sinus, Finnicus, etc?--Ioshus (disp) 18:19, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

message: because they are a specific in people as american indian are a specific people. Not all the people who lives in Somalia belongs to the Somali--Massimo Macconi 19:53, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you have a point...it just seemed a little weird to me. I would have put this article as a sub-heading under Somalia, but it seems we have precedent on a few other wikipedias. Licet.--Ioshus (disp) 22:01, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
The Somali ethnic group (Somali) is not confined to the country of Somalia, as well as not all inhabitants of Somalia (Somalienses) are of Somali ethnicity. Rana philogeographica 20:29, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somali are not the same as Somalia..
Disputatio:Sagum (cibus)

message: Unfortunately, wwwopac.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp seems to be down, so I can't check if the error was mine or Maffei's. --Iustinus 21:43, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wwwopac has been dead a long time.  The new site just appears to be under www.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp; the book itself is  and the full "Japonica" collection here. —Myces Tiberinus 00:03, 8 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh man, that bodes ill for Index Fontium Latinorum de Iaponia. --Iustinus 01:07, 8 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  appelant