lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Iacobus Nicholson

message: Re: "qui appellatur Iacobus id est Anglice Jack"—Nego Iacobus esse 'Jack'. (Egomet sum Iacobus, sed non sum Jack.) Adsunt fontes pro Iacobus = 'Jack'? Supongo que es posible, pero no estoy seguro. IacobusAmor 18:06, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The equation was (first?) brought up by Iustinus on Disputatio:Jack Sparrow (back when it was Disputatio:Navarchus Ioannes Passer).  Of course Iacobus isn't always Jack, though as regards this particular one's name, as the page more or less says, "it is Jack in English".  The line should be rewritten or dropped anyway, though, as it is confusingly worded.  —Mucius Tever 02:18, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iacobus =?
Disputatio:Barium (discretiva)

message: Haec removi ad nomen usitatissimum, Barrum:
# Barium ad Albulam (Francogallice Bar-sur-Aube) est urbs Francogallica;
# Barium Ducis (Francogallice Bar-le-Duc) est urbs Francogallica;
# Barium ad Sequanam (Francogallice Bar-sur-Seine) est urbs Francogallica;
Hoc removi pro tempore, quia sunt multi urbes Russiae Bar nomine, et quia nexus intervici erroneus est; sed sine dubio debemus verificare et re-inserere in pagina.
# Barium (Russice Bar) est urbs Russica;
replies: text: Has omnes urbes potes in  Orbe Latino invenire. --- Gualterio
replies: text: :Urbes Francicas reperis apud Barrum (discretiva) cum explicatione. Pro urbe Russica, scripsisti "Russice Bar" et nexus inutilis est. Si habes fontem verum, cur fontem falsum citas? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:44, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Si ibis ad :ru:Бар, reperibis nonnullos urbes huius nominis. Sed an una, vel omnes, vel nulla sit urbs a Graesse Barium appellatum, nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:51, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

text: :Urbs Podoliae Bar (Бар, secundum Graesse 2. Bar, St., Rußland (Podolien).) nunc non in Russia, sed in Ucraina est. -- Alexander Geraščenko 12:18, 19 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Emendationes meae: OK?

message: Hoc removi quia urbem non reperio et quia nexus intervici erroneus est:
# Barium (Francogallice Barris) est urbs Francogallica;
replies: text: Hoc quoque in Orbe Latino invenire potes, nec error meus est. --- Gualterio
replies: text: :Sed tu scripsisti "Francogallice Barris," cum nexu, et nexus inutilis est! Si habes fontem verum, cur fontem falsum citas? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
Haec removi quia Barium non est Bari:
# Bari sunt populus Americanus;
# Bari est commune Indicus;
# Bari sunt populus Sudanicus cum sua lingua Barica;
# Bari est regio Somalica;
# Barium nomen simile est urbi Sardae vulgo Bari Sardo, Latine Custodia Rubriensis
thread_title: Errores, ut credo

message: Nexus intervici corrigi. Hic habemus verbum Barium; vide nunc Bari (discretiva) cum nexus intervici pro verbo Bari. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus intervici
Disputatio:Arcus triumphalis (Lutetia)

message: Fortasse Arcus Triumphalis (Lutetia)? "Arcus triumphalis" mille plagas Googlianas monstrat; "Arcus triumphi" triginta tantum, quorum nonnullas e Vicipaedia ipsa. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurro! LionhardusCiampa 11:50, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Reri Arcus Triumphalis sine Lutetia quia Arc de Triomphe est unicus.  Nostrae Dominae sunt multissimae, e. g. LionhardusCiampa 11:58, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Certe aptissimum commentarium Arcus triumphalis sic coepit: Arcus triumphalis fuit structura praesertim Romana. . . . ex hoc: "ARCUS TRIUMPHALIS (a triumphal arch) was a structure peculiar to the Romans, among whom it seems to have taken its origin from the Porta Triumphalis, the gate by which a general celebrating a triumph led his army into the city, on which occasions the gate was adorned with trophies and other memorials of the particular victory celebrated. In process of time other arches were erected, both at Rome and in the provinces, to celebrate single victories, the memorials of which were carved upon them or fixed to them, and these remained as permanent monuments. They even came to be erected in memory of a victory for which there had been no triumph; nay, even to commemorate other events than victories. That at Ancona, for example, was erected in honour of Trajan, when he had improved the harbour of the city at his own expense" (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:TPWG_NV8wT8J:penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Arcus_Triumphalis.html+%22arcus+triumphalis%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8).
thread_title: Nomen

message: Should some mention be included of the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel?--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 08:23, 29 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: More pressingly, I'd say, we ought to have a general article headed Arcus triumphalis (see the unsigned comment above) and some articles about other major triumphal arches. I don't think the one at the Carrousel is among the better-known, but by all means write a page about it if you want! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 29 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel
Disputatio:Imuthes

message: Hmm, I see that commons has several images of Papyrus Westcar. Aesthetic question: would it add to the article to include an image of that manuscript, or detract from it? Normally I'm all for more images, but I'm a bit worried the addition might look cluttered, and heterogenous. --Iustinus 20:40, 4 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images
Disputatio:Linter

message: Linter may not be best word here, but (at least temporarily) it makes a position for a Latin equivalent of 'boat'. Perhaps the most intriguing distinction I've seen is this: a boat is a vessel small enough to be carried aboard a ship. IacobusAmor 15:25, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Termini Anglici: ''boat'' versus ''ship''
Disputatio Categoriae:Nomina

message: I think nearly all the pages in this category should be in :Categoria:Praenomina. With the exception of Ennius and one or two others, these are not nomina. Or am I wrong? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we ask UVbot to do it? Or will someone have to do it manually? Harrissimo 21:21, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: :Yes, if we agree, I think UV could do it easily. The bot would move them all, then I could manually replace the very few that are really about nomina. In fact, Ennius and a few others should be in two categories; they are Roman nomina which are now used (in Italy, Portugal, etc.) as praenomina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 6 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No one has objected so I will ask UV's bot to make this move. If no one else does it first I promise to add manually to :Categoria:Nomina the few pages that should remain in this category or should be in both. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 6 Maii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen categoriae
Disputatio:Lingua Clingon

message: Quomodo optime aptemus tlhIngan Hol (quod est Klingon in lingua ipsa) lingua nostrae? Dubito lingua Clingon optimum... Hoc tlh fictum est, a Marco Okrand, qui operam dedit studio linguarum Americae indigenarum, ut appellatur sicut tl in Nahuatl, ergo fortasse Lingua Tlingana? --Ioscius (disp) 01:44, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forsitan potest dici Lingua Klingona (tlhIngan Hol in lingua ispa)?--Rafaelgarcia 02:11, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Non video rationem qua haereamus modo Anglice scribendi. Estne ratio? Ut dixi, fontem habemus quo aptemus tl linguae Latinae.--Ioscius (disp) 02:14, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Litterae tl ab ineunte syllaba plerumque Latine fieri non potest. Vide fero, ferre, tuli, latum, ubi hoc latum est ortum in verbo *tlatum (pro *tulatum). Ergo Clingon recte est Lingon, et tlhIngan = Lingan. Nos autem verbum Tlingit iam habemus. Ergo, Tlingan est OK! Recte igitur: Lingua Tlingana? IacobusAmor 02:23, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Esse mihi videatur... --Ioscius (disp) 02:31, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Italiae scripta

message: The general question may have come up before, but why are these categories involving possessive syntax, as we see here (in English, 'Italy's writings')? Are Scripta Italica and Scripta de Italia worse? IacobusAmor 13:10, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worse, but potentially they give the wrong sense. Scripta Italica could refer to the Italian language as well as to the country: it's the country that's wanted here. Scripta de Italia would mean "Writings about Italy".

text: As to your translation, I'm not sure that that's really English! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetivus + ''scripta''
Disputatio:De bello Gallico

message: If it's Libri historici and Libri autobiographici, why isn't it Scripta Italica? The lack of parallelism of Italiae scripta makes my screen twitch! IacobusAmor 16:38, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
aliena lingua scribis! Scribe Latina!
thread_title: Categoriae

message: Yes, Donatello, it is not a mistake, that is really the wording Caesar used. You may not like it and prefer the more conventional "partes tres", but when quoting we should use the exact words. You can't find anything more official than OCT. In general when reading Caesar you'll find that in the acc. pl. he propably always uses -is in the 3rd decl. Next time please don't make such alteratings without proper research. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 18:00, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You might find it in the preview: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0198146027 --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 18:05, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Actually Ceasar was a Mexican Cook, Cesar who was talking about the Chicken: Gallina est omnis divisa in partis tris...--Jondel (disputatio) 19:19, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC) :)
replies: text: ::I see. I didn't know that (not the chicken thing). Thanks. :) I guess then he would continue as: "...quarum unam editur Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum linguas gustant, nobis aromatibus condiuntur." -- Donatello (disputatio) 02:59, 19 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :::To be fair, some other texts use the "classical" spelling, such as this one at the Bibliotheca Augustana, which is apparently based on the Teubner text. Teubners are good too. But I agree with Nicolaus that the OCT is a highly reliable source, and since we cite it in the footnote we should stick to what the cited source says. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 19 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...divisa in partis tris
Disputatio:Carcharodontosaurus

message: Amice, textum Anglicum dixit Carcharodontosaurum fuisse breviorem quam Tyrannosaurum. Tua Latina dicit C. fuisse longiorem. Anglice, "nearly" = "not quite" (prope, paene). IacobusAmor 17:50, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Longior? brevior?
Disputatio:Pueri viae Panispernae

message: Oh, OK, perfect tense if you insist! but I was reading quod Institutum Physicum tum in Via Panispernae situm erat in the pluperfect: 'because the Physics Institute had then been situated on Panispernae Way'. Thus my perception: situm est 'was situated', situm erat 'had been situated'. IacobusAmor 03:04, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, usually situs,-a,-um functions as an adjective indicating the location of the thingie talked about. So, in my reading, situm erat = iacebat. In any case, tum doesn't go with est. --Neander 03:26, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Then we'd better tell the people who produce Ephemeris, which in 2007 reported "Magistrorum tumultus tum ortus est" (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:J6GKH29NNUEJ:ephemeris.alcuinus.net/archi2007/nuntius.php%3Fid%3D340+%22tum+ortus+est%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8)! IacobusAmor 03:39, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tempus pluperfectum: ''situm erat''

message: Let's not! In my example, the temporal reference of "situm est" is to the present (because "situm" functions as an adjective). --Neander 15:43, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A participle can go either way, and that's the problem! On the basis of Caesar's Gallia est divisa, I'd be likelier to expect est situm for 'is placed' and situm est for 'has been placed', but of course that distinction may merely be an idiosyncrasy, and of course one can find plenty of counterexamples, e.g., lingua in ore sita est (Cicero), in which sita is a predicate adjective. Sino 'I place', sivi 'I placed, I have placed', situs sum 'I have been placed'. IacobusAmor 17:04, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Divisum est and situm est are scarcely comparable. While divisum est seems to involve the problem you're pointing out, this isn't the case with situm est. In classical Latin, sino, sivi doesn't normally mean 'I place', 'I have placed', respectively. Situm (in the meaning 'placed'), though formally part of the verbal (macro)paradigm, is a historical relic from those prehistorical days when sino did mean 'I place' (reconstructible from pōno < *po-sino). I think it's fair to say that, due to the slackening of the semantic bonds of situm 'placed' wrt the rest of the paradigm of sino 'leave, allow', situm has become practically ousted from the verbal paradigm. As a semi-autonomous form, situm is ADJ by default. --Neander 20:57, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADJ + copula: ''situm est''
Disputatio:Algorithmus

message: (Copied from Usor:Rolandus/Existing pages. --Rolandus 18:45, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC))
replies: text: en:Algorithm → Algorithmus

text: Algoritmus and Algorismus are both Latinized forms of the name Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Both these Latin forms are also used sometimes to denote the mathematical procedure. I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes even the spelling Algorithmus (with 'h') may refer to both the procedure and the person. It seems better, therefore, to choose the same spelling for the person and the procedure, adding the disambiguating info in parentheses, e.g. Algoritmus (methodus mathematica). --Fabullus 19:16, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Agreed. Though perhaps we should track down some period sources just to be sure. The spelling with an h is sure to occur in Latin somewhere: foreign names are often given superfluous aspiration just to make them look more exotic, and of course the reason the spelling with an h ended up predominating in the vernacular is that it resembles ἀριθμός --Iustinus 14:19, 12 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: :Summary of consensus: Algoritmus (methodus mathematica) --Rafaelgarcia 17:40, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Despite the 'consensus' I have decided to name the page Algorithmus, which is attested and which is the most recognizable form. --Fabullus 09:02, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)

message: Aut inscriptiones Anglicae in diagrammate vertendae sunt (e.g.: "Lucerna/lampas non lucet — An inserta est? — Inserenda est — An ampulla ... (nescio)? — Alia ampulla opus est. — Alia lucerna opus est"), — aut diagramma removendum. Si burn out invenietur, imaginem reficere potero Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:55, 30 Decembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscriptiones
Disputatio Categoriae:Urbes Iraniae

message: Haec pagina ad Categoria:Urbes in Irania movatur. Aramgar 21:18, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Aramgar 21:25, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: Non intelleximus vicilinguam: (Automaton: mutans Categoria:Urbes in Turcia; cosmetic changes). Veniam precamur. Aramgar 21:32, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae nomen
Disputatio:Leslius

message: Nomen non Latine redditum est... Cur sunt fontes desiderati? Harrissimo 20:52, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: Fortasse habeamus nomen Latinum pro Leslie, quod nescio.--Xaverius 21:00, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :A Dictionary of First Names dicit Leslie esse "Transferred use of the Scottish surname derived from the lands of Lesslyn in Aberdeenshire (a place name perhaps named in Gaelic as leas cuilinn ‘garden of hollies’)." Nomen difficile quidem Latinando. Harrissimo 21:27, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: ::Tunc erit Leslie, -is?--Xaverius 21:29, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Lesliis genetive? Malim indeclinabile "Leslie Nielsen" (fortasse nomen plenum "Leslie Gulielmus Nielsen" adhiberi possit?) Harrissimo 21:37, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: ::::This seems to indicate (see footnote there) that it is simply "Leslius". --Alex1011 21:48, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Eh, sure, but this one gives 'Leslaeus' explicitly and Lexicon Universale gives John Leslie's surname as 'Lesleus'. —Mucius Tever 03:21, 11 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::I'll take this to the disputatio of Leslius rather than that of Leslius Nielsen--Xaverius 08:55, 11 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: :::Good work. I've found another source; I'm just making a page for the name Leslius and then we can move this to Leslius Nielsen. Harrissimo 22:08, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
Considering hat our first source dates back to the 16th c. and says "Leslius" we should keep it rather than the other forms, although these should also be mentioned.--Xaverius 08:57, 11 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex disputatione [[Leslius Nielsen|Leslii Nielsen]]
Disputatio:Cursus electronicus

message: Cursus electronicus
replies: text: Nuntius electronicus ? --Ceylon 12:11, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Traupman gives for the email system cursus electronicus and for a particular email litterae electronicae. Since the english page is about the system, choose the first.--Rafaelgarcia 05:18, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: "Cursus electronicus seu e-mail (ex Anglice electronic mail)..." Ehm, what. Mattie 17:26, 7 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "e-mail" 

message: It is unacceptable that the user interface is in German. Please find an email program that supports Latin. --2001:16B8:31DF:5400:88EA:B6DB:16A1:1491 13:10, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epistula electronica
Disputatio:Algorismus

message: Algorismus. Even though al-Khwarizmi actually means Chorasmius ;) --Iustinus 07:11, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Algoritmus: see also :en:Algorithm#Etymology. --Fabullus 09:30, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yup, if the page exists it exists! Redirect time. --Iustinus 17:39, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: Secundum Jens Hoyrup magister (Haffven Roskildensis University), et Rosen interpres "al-Gabr w'al muqabala" Al-Khwarizmi  Graece et Hindu libros tantum erat interpres .Jens Hoyrup dixit quod "Algorismus arca non fingere"Jens Hoyrup, <<Algèbre d'Al-gabr>> et <<algebra d'arpentage>> au neuvième siècle islamique et la question de l'influence babylonienne, pagina 88, Cahiers d'Altaïr, Peeters-Leuven, 1992.  Secundum Rosen, "ut constare non finxisse nunc artes"en : That he was not the inventor of the Art is now well established (Rosen) Le mythe de l'invention de l'algèbre par les Arabes, Thierry Veyt in paginam Scepticisme scientifique.Max (disputatio) 10:26, 21 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Algorismus interpres?
Disputatio:Capitis dolor

message: Dolor capitis --Iustinus 07:22, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Secundum Celsium: capitis dolor. IacobusAmor 16:11, 24 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

message: Lemma mutavi in Capitis dolor. ¶ Cassell's, citing Celsius, gives 'headache' as capitis dolor (not dolor capitis). Since the dictionary is trying to help us write idiomatic classical Latin, we might take note when it goes out of its way to show that two-noun phrases of which one noun is in the genitive take an order that's the reverse of canonical order (and the genitive comes first, not second). These are presumably fixed phrases, which would sound unidiomatic (though of course intelligible) when put the other way round. I've noted a few as they've come into view: artis opus 'work of art', crucis supplicium 'crucifixion', fabularum scriptor 'playwright', iuris consultus 'lawyer', rerum natura 'the nature of things' (Lucretii), senatus consultum 'formal resolution of the senate', telorum coniectus 'fire of missiles', temporum quadripartitae 'the four seasons'. Similarly with phrases consisting of a noun and an adjective: civilis ratio 'politics', extrema aestate 'at the end of summer', hodiernus dies 'today' et ad hodiernum diem 'up to this time' (Cicero), humanus cultus 'civilization', ineunte aestate 'at the beginning of summer', novus homo 'new man', patrius sermo 'mother tongue', postmeridianum tempus 'afternoon', praesens animus 'presence of mind'. Praeterea, Ainsworth nobis praebet procerum gradus 'peerage' et optimatum dignitas 'peerage'. Est etiam verbum compositum: cordolium 'heartache' (non dolor cordis vel dolcordium). IacobusAmor 13:46, 18 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Agger

message: (Copied from: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Dam):</br>
*agger, -is (m) vel hic
*moles, -is (f) vel hic
*ob(i)ex, obicis (m/f) vel hic
Agger mihi maxime placet, sed hic quoque complures significatus in se iungit. --Fabullus 05:21, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceterum, ut nunc video, Tacito hoc sensu (Angl. 'dam' or 'dike') 'moles' magis placuisse videtur:
# (Hist. V 14:) addiderat Civilis obliquam in Rhenum molem, cuius obiectu revolutus amnis adiacentibus superfunderetur.
#(Hist. V 18:) simul e mole, quam eductam in Rhenum rettulimus, Bructerorum cuneus transnatavit.
#(Hist. V 19:) quin et diruit molem a Druso Germanico factam Rhenumque prono alveo in Galliam ruentem, disiectis quae morabantur, effudit.
Quomodo Latine distinguamus inter nomina Anglica 'dam' et 'dike' quorum utrumque Latine 'agger' aut 'moles' appellatur? --Fabullus 14:54, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
</br>
(End of copy)</br>

text: De nomine (agger aut moles) vide quoque hic et hic --Fabullus 21:52, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :De hoc, vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_8#No unique Latin translation for English 'Dam'--Rafaelgarcia 22:00, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine huius paginae
Disputatio:Illuminismus

message: For this English word, Cassell's gives only one Latin term: humanitas. IacobusAmor 23:28, 13 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be moved to Aevum illuminationis or whatever else is attested. Else the definition will be wrong: Illuminatio is not an aevum, but a shining of light on something.--Ceylon 06:08, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Itavero. --Fabullus 14:18, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Aevum illuminationis sounds fine. I would prefer not to use "humanitas", since that, like "illuminatio", sounds like a more general, abstract term. Leigh (disp) 12:31, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: ::P.S. sorry for leaving this article as a stub. I quickly found that translating the ideas in the English article for this was beyond my Latinitas at that time of night ;-)
replies: text: :::Aevum illuminationis = 'Age of Lighting'—manifeste post Thomas Edison?! IacobusAmor 12:56, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I'm sure they had candles in the 18th century, they are lights :-) Both Lewis & Short and Smith & Hall note uses "Illuminatio" for "enlightenment" in a sense similar to this one (although they were religious, this is secular). Anyway I don't think that the ambiguity here (which I doubt can be avoided) is any greater than that of any of the Romance languages (French seems to get by with "Siècle des Lumières": the age of lights). Leigh (disp) 15:53, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

text: The English doesn't have the ambiguity. How about aevum dilucidationis? Pantocrator 14:20, 14 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Enlightenment"
Disputatio:Moles Syenitica

message: (Copied from: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Aswan Dam):</br>
Aswan = Syene, adjectival form Syenites. --Iustinus 03:05, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking Syenites is a noun, denoting a male inhabitant of Syene. Perhaps it may also be combined with male substantives, but the actual adjective would be Syeniticus, so Agger Syeniticus. (For Agger: see here). --Fabullus 05:28, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :After a close examination of the way the words agger and moles are used in Latin, I have decided for Moles Syenitica, which I have just now created. I will make Agger Syeniticus a redirect.--Fabullus 12:20, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)</br>
(End of copy)</br>
replies: text: ::Awesome! --Iustinus 17:03, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine huius paginae