lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Mogadiscium

message: Nomen Muqdisho = /mugdiʃo/ (Latine Mugdiso), non /mogadiskio/ (Mogadiscio)? Unde interpellatio soni /k/? Adest attestatio? IacobusAmor 18:50, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Et mihi videtur Italicum esse nomen. Mogadiscio, ~nis, f.? Ad minimum videatur Mogadiscium vel aliquid simile...--Ioscius (disp) 18:59, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Puto hoc "c" in Mogadiscio esse aptum solum in Latina Catholica Romana. IacobusAmor 19:05, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Eight weeks later, the name remains wrong: Muqdisho Latine fit Mugdiso ~ Mogdiso ~ Mucdiso ~ Mocdiso ~ Mugadiso ~ Mogadiso ~ Mucadiso ~ Mocadiso, sed non Mogadiskio (litteris translatiticis Mogadiscio). Unde sonus /k/? IacobusAmor 18:19, 14 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civitatis nomen
Disputatio:Papa (discretiva)

message: Cur adest hoc verbum? Patata indubitate non est papa! IacobusAmor 13:33, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoniam papa est verbum Quechicum pro tubere solani, quo usus est in America latina. Si tamen senties verbum huc non adpertinet, non illum disputabo: licet summovere illum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:47, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, OK; paginam vicificavimus. IacobusAmor 14:35, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patata

message: I've put them in the right encyclopedic order, giving precedence to the one referring to a male parent—the primary sense, from which all other senses (except the tuberous one) flow. But somebody ruined the redirect of the one referring to a male parent, so it's been wrongly redirecting to the Roman Catholic sense. Could somebody now fix this redirect? (I don't know how to do it.) IacobusAmor 15:06, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentariorum ordo
Disputatio Categoriae:Species Gastropodum

message: I suggest the style should be :Categoria:Species Gastropodum or :Categoria:Gastropodum species. In Latin the two nouns ought to be in a grammatical relation, and the genitive (= "Species of Gastropoda") is probably the easiest. Do others agree? Categories can't be moved, but they can easily be deleted and re-created so long as they have few members. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
*Ok, with me, then categoria:Gastropoda can be deleted, Hendricus 15:10, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Patella vulgata

message: The link to en: takes readers to the article Limpet, which isn't at all coordinate with the article Patella (Patella) vulgata. In this case (and any analogous ones that have crept into Vicipaedia), wouldn't it be better to give the link within the article, perhaps in a section headed "Vide"? IacobusAmor 13:16, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
* I've copied the list with interwiki's from the dutch, not all links get you to the same article, that's because, not all projects have articles about every group like genus or family, the english link "Limpet" shoud direct you to our article Docoglossa - Limpet is the English name for all species in that group, i correct that, Hendricus 13:31, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus

message: Could the article explain why the name Patella is repeated as a parenthesis? To a nonbiologist, that's a mystery! IacobusAmor 13:16, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
* Well, that's a mystery indeed, that's why they call it science - i suppose, i realy don't know, it makes a great subject to write a article about - even a whole book, i just copy the names from publications as i added within the referencia, i don't make them up, Hendricus 13:21, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, that's honest! The answer is that zoologists fancied dividing up the genus Patella into subgenera. In such a case, the first-defined subgenus was properly called "Patella (subgenus Patella)". However, a binomial name like Patella vulgata is just as official (perhaps more official) that Patella (Patella) vulgata. More people use it, it is not in any way ambiguous, and it is easier to type. Before you get any further, Hendricus, maybe you might consider using the straight binomials (like Patella vulgata) as titles. If you wanted to add the extra parenthesis in the text, to make clear which subgenus we're talking about, that would work fine, I think. What's your view? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! That was fast! I hope you don't mind, Hendrice, I also moved Patella (Patellidae) to Patella (genus): this happens to be the way we usually handle it if a genus name is synonymous with a word of a different meaning. OK? I also therefore made a page Patella (discretiva), and added links to it at the top of the two "Patella" pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :The discretiva looks fine and explains everything. I was wondering where kneecaps came into the picture! IacobusAmor 13:49, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Looks great to me this way, place some comment within the tekst, and place a redirect about the names, shoul work out fine - like that, maybe it's possible to place the discretiva within somekind of border, to make sure it's not a part of the article's tekst (ok, future tekst), Hendricus 13:55, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I like that idea, yes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parenthesis
Disputatio:Patella (genus)

message: Shouldn't the article sort the species into their respective subgenera? If not, how can we know the subgenus to which any species belongs? IacobusAmor 13:48, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
*I'll think about that, Hendricus 15:20, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxinomia
Disputatio:Tautogramma

message: Si quis interea vult augescere, facito! Regressurum me promitto esse.--Ioscius (disp) 13:39, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Secundum vicipaediam Anglicam tres sunt res similes (si recte comprehendi): 
*tautogramma (:en:tautogram): omnes litterae principales eaedem sunt. Non sunt omnia poemata.
*alliteratio (:en:alliteration): Nonnullae sed non omnes literae principales eaedem sunt. (Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam)
*alliterative verse (:en:alliterative verse): allitertivum poema est tautogramma quod etiam poema est. (hexametrum et similia.)
Nobisne haec definitiones adsumendae sunt? --Alex1011 14:58, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...non placet versus alliterativus... consentio duobus primis. Quid tu censes?--Ioscius (disp) 03:46, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Si ergo primam et secundam definitionem assumere volumus, nobis paginae textus paululum mutandus est sic: "tautogrammata poemata esse possunt sed non debent."
replies: text: ::Ita, nunc legitur modo "textus", nil dicit vel de poemate vel prosa. At consentio, fortasse explicandum melius.--Ioscius (disp) 16:16, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: :Et ego quodam loco legi definitionem quae inter tautogrammatem et alliterationem secundum legendum et audiendum differt, sicut nunc in pagina scriptum est. Sin autem hanc secundam definitionem assumimus, differentia est si omnes ("tautogramma") vel nonnulla ("alliteratio") verba sententiae eadem littera incipiunt. Hanc definitionem et faciliorem et meliorem puto. Versum alliterativum revera neglegere possumus, ut arbitror. --Alex1011 16:09, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita dein neglegamus.--Ioscius (disp) 16:16, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tautogramma/alliteratio/poema alliterativum
Disputatio:Sebastea

message: Quo nomine Latino vocabimus .XL. iuvenes qui Sebasteae mortui sunt? Cognoscimus modo “Oi Hágioi Tesserákonta Mártyres oi en Sebasteía” vel “Hágioi Seránda” et “Kırklar.” Fontem quaerimus. Wayne's Quicky Lube 13:55, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontem non habeo. An possumus Quadraginta Sancti vel Quadraginta Martyres dicere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Quadraginta Sanctos scribemus. Gratiam tibi agimus. Wayne's Quicky Lube 14:14, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: XL

message: Quo genitivo Zelae aut Zelorum declinat Zela? Wayne's Quicky Lube 13:16, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zela declinat Zelorum et cetera. Professor Wilson ablativum scripsit Zelis. Vide D. R. Wilson, “Two Milestones From Pontus,” Anatolian Studies 10 (1960), 134. Wayne's Quicky Lube 14:23, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zela
Disputatio:Iohannes Placentius

message: An debemus potius "Iohannes" scribere? Fere omnes mediaevales et recentes, inter annos 1000 et 1900, littera "J" usi sunt. Usque adhuc, nos eam litteram in "I" mutavimus. Si nunc vis accipere, necesse est permultas paginas emendare ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide fontem, Andrea: "↑ Etsi usus litterae J prohibendus est, apud nos, per VP:TNP, scribendum est nomen Latinum modo quo auctor ipse scripsit. Placentius scripsit Johannes." Me scis: fere semper censeo J delendam esse, at hic dubio. Putem nomen ut auctor scripsit adhibendum. Dissentisne?--Ioscius (disp) 14:17, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vidi, mi Iosci! Sed nescio cur hoc exemplum differt a permultis aliis. Fere omnes qui habebant nomen Latinum et inter annos fere 1000 et 1900 vivebant, littera "J" usi sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Mutanda, ergo! Omnes J delendae sunt!!! =] --Ioscius (disp) 14:42, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ego consentio, Iosci: quid Avitus dixerit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Maledicta, procul dubio =] --Ioscius (disp) 17:05, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Formulae:Videdis

message: I guess so. I never used  because I couldn't see the point in a formula that takes just as long to type as the words you require! The experimental formulae I've just created,  and , are very easy to type, produce a brief message (unlike  and ) and -- at Hendricus' suggestion -- have a background that distinguishes them visibly from the body of the article. I thought that was a good idea. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with redirecting  to  (but why is this template called disp?).

text: I fear that  might get confused with ordinary "read more" links like  and might get added in the middle or in the end of articles, which is apparently not your intention. Perhaps the text appearing in this template could make it clearer that this template should only be used for linking to homonymes? --UV 22:25, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was away for a few days and have only just seen this! Yes, good point, I have now revised the text in  to make clear that it points to an article about a homonym. I will add comments at the formula pages to explain these formulae are for use only at the head of articles.

text: :Perhaps I should move these two formulae to  (for "Vide etiam paginam homonymam") and  for "Vide etiam paginam discretivam"). Would that work? If that makes sense and no one objects, I could then do the necessary merging. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Perfect! --UV 00:09, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Disputatio:Cibarium album

message: Quidnam sibi vult "albabus"? Nonne "albus"? --Neander 01:24, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pytho Montio, albus cibus ludet tenniludium." Fortasse qui vidit ludos scaenicos Pythonicos id intellegit; ego minime. Debemus aut explicare aut omittere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 5 Septembris 2010 (UTC)

message: "Albus cibus" fonte caret. Aliud nomen possibile reperitur in DMLBS:
* peponum, ~us [cf. 2 pepo] , mortress, ‘blancmange’.
** morterews, dyschmete, ~um PP; blawemanger, ~us; ‥ mortrws, pepo, ~um CathA.
* 2 pepo, ~e [cf. πέπων = ripe, softened] , sort of soup, pottage, custard, or sim., mortrel, mortress, charlet.
** charlettee, dyschmete, ~o ‥ , kylwarbi PP 77; hoc ~e, A. mortrus; ‥ hoc ~e, moteryls; ‥ ~o, A. mortreuus WW; mortrws, ~o, peponum CathA.
Hoc autem vetus vocabuli blancmange significatio esse videtur (OED. s.v. "blancmange": "Formerly: A dish composed usually of fowl, but also of other meat, minced with cream, rice, almonds, sugar, eggs, etc. Obsolete"). Lesgles (disputatio) 14:03, 15 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Verba "peponum" et "pepo" hoc tempore reicio quia (mea mente) ad Anglicum "mortress" potius quam "blancmange(r)" respondent. "Cibaria alba" (apud Platinam) certe ad "bianco mangiare" etc. respondet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 26 Martii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peponum
Disputatio:Euripides

message: Quo ordine numeratur tragoediae? Nisi per tempus, per litteras opportet...--Ioscius (disp) 03:38, 25 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Sed tamen memorari debet (ab eo qui melius quam ego latine loquitur). Et simpliciter unum ex operibus primis esse potuit. -Tawaki (disputatio) 14:28, 25 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserui de Rheso quaedam. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:13, 25 Decembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraversiam scio, utrum Euripides, an alius, ''Rhesum'' scripsit.
Disputatio:Sambahsa-mundialect

message: Amice: You've changed comprehensibilis to intelligibilis, a word that seems to be quite rare, as it's in only one of three dictionaries I consulted (it's not in the biggest, L&S). The ordinary Classical Latin word for the idea of English 'intelligible' seems to be comprehensibilis (as used by Cicero). Similarly, you've used the word similaritas, which isn't in any of those three dictionaries, and has the appearance of being a back-formation from modern languages. There's of course nothing unnatural about back-formations, but they may well bother readers & writers who consult Vicipaedia to strengthen their grasp of Classical Latin. Verb. sap. IacobusAmor 17:28, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly...someone completely rewrote an article of mine recently, claiming to make it "intelligibilius scripta"...--Ioscius (disp) 17:46, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :That points up a problem with vocabulary in any foreign language: it's hard for nonnative speakers to appreciate the sorts of textual environments to which native speakers typically restrict many words. Since the earliest author my dictionary cites for intelligibilis is Pliny, Cicero may never have encountered the word, and so, to mark its oddity, he may have wanted to put it inside scare quotes (if he'd known about scare quotes). Similaritas isn't in any of the three consulted dictionaries, so something must be wrong with it, from a Classical viewpoint: either it didn't exist then, or it was so rare as to be negligible. ¶ I'm currently compiling a list of technici basipilae termini, and it's a fair guess that Cicero wouldn't have understood many of the Latin versions; indeed, many native speakers of English who don't know the game would probably have trouble guessing at the particularly pertinent meanings of chopper, closer, heat, ERA (not the Equal Rights Amendment!), and two-hopper, or of even less arcane terms, like a ground-rule double, the infield-fly rule, and the bullpen. IacobusAmor 18:49, 26 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Antiqua et nova verba
Disputatio:Iglu

message: Quanam ratione iglu, -us masculini generis sit? Nonne neutrius ut genu, -us? --Neander 03:19, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nulla ratione! Fortasse neutrum est melius! IacobusAmor 04:04, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neander, thanks for adjusting the gender. I changed it in the first line, but forgot to adjust the text accordingly. IacobusAmor 02:25, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

message: Est linguae nomen indigenarum recte "Lingua Groenlandica" (non "Lingua Inuitica")? IacobusAmor 02:07, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguae nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Carmina natalicia

message: * Gaudete (:en:Gaudete, disambiguate the hymn from the third Sunday in Advent named after that hymn)
* In dulci iubilo (:en:In Dulci Jubilo, de:, sv:)
* :en:O Sanctissima (de:, fr:) contribuenda cum O Sanctissima
Just in case someone has time … --UV 20:23, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another link: :de:Liste fremdsprachiger Weihnachtslieder#Lateinisch --UV 23:05, 28 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paginae desiderati - carmina Latine scripta
Disputatio:Zela

message: Quo genitivo declinat Zela? Wayne's Quicky Lube 12:04, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zela->Zelae, recte?--Rafaelgarcia 12:08, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fontem habes? Wayne's Quicky Lube 14:05, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Illum careo. Solum coniecto de sua terminatione in a.--Rafaelgarcia 15:58, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
Zela declinat Zelorum et cetera. Professor Wilson ablativum scripsit Zelis. Vide D. R. Wilson, “Two Milestones From Pontus,” Anatolian Studies 10 (1960), 134. Wayne's Quicky Lube 14:22, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zela, -orum?
Disputatio:The Office

message: What's this page about? Duty? It makes no sense whatever...What are you trying to say? Given your user name I'm guessing you are trying to translate something from english?--Rafaelgarcia 00:48, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure this is about the American :en:The_Office, Rafael. I only know because I heard about it on NPR, this morning, apparently people are flocking to Scranton to visit landmarks mentioned in the show.--Ioscius (disp) 01:36, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Isn't an officina more like a workshop? My dictionary says an office, meaning a 'place where business is transacted', is mensa, -ae and taberna, -ae. IacobusAmor 03:27, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Whatever we decide, we don't have articles in this language to distinguish between office and The office, so this page will have to be about the place of work and not the show.--Ioscius (disp) 03:41, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I agree with Ioscius. Perhaps Officina (televisio)? Is there a precedent? I got officina from Traupman 2003. Where his first two non political definitions are ..(workplace) officina; (teacher's) studiolum... Also compare with Romance languages Office-> Oficina (Hispanice).--Rafaelgarcia 04:32, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

text: ::I was attempting to write about the American TV Show the Office.  I'm a first year Latin student, so I apologize in advance for the inevitable errors I will make. --Dvightius K. Schrute
replies: text: :::Don't worry! Everybody makes errors. As long as you do so in good faith, you'll be welcomed happily! IacobusAmor 15:25, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Coniungatur cum The Office. Ambobus non est opus. Nonne nomen originis (hic nomen Anglicum) valet, quoniam versio Latina nondum edita est. --Neander 23:33, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Officium
Disputatio:Cestoda

message: Forma cestoda est pluralis. Singularis huius vocabuli est cestodes a Graeco κεστῶδες, quod est generis neutri. Vocabula talia declinantur ut asteroides, de qua re vide hic. Genetivus pluralis est cestodum non cestodorum. --Fabullus 06:03, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De declinatione vocabuli "cestoda"

message: Anglice: 'Taxonomic system of the cestods' (?). But Systema taxinomia Cestoda (unpunctuated) was seemingly ungrammatical: 'Taxonomic system the cestods' (?). Still, I'm doubting that the genders of systema & taxinomia are in agreement. Isn't systema neuter? This taxinomia doesn't look like a neuter adjective. But then I need a nap. IacobusAmor 17:53, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You reed it like this:The taxonomic system of the "Cestoda" group or like this: Systema taxinomia : Cestoda, Hendricus 18:41, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Taxonomia is a noun, the corresponding adjective is taxonomicus. Since systema is neuter, the correct construction should be 'Systema taxonomicum Cestodum'. --Fabullus 18:54, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ok, fine with me, i'll keep that in mind with my next and future articles, but you have to help out to correct the articles i've already made, there are about 300 - i think, Hendricus 19:22, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Fabulle, that's what I was thinking. Systema taxinomia didn't make sense, though we knew what it was trying to say! Hendrice, Systema taxinomia doesn't mean 'the taxonomic system': it means 'the system the taxonomy'; its a string of words that don't relate grammatically to each other. IacobusAmor 19:27, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Systema taxinomia Cestodum
Disputatio:Praia

message: I've changed ac to et. The original resolved itself to: Praia est urbs circa 113000 incolarum ac caput Promontorii Viridis 'Praia is a city of 113,000 inhabitants and even the capital of Cape Verde'. This ac (atque) = 'and besides, and even, and especially, and further, and indeed'. Such emphasis is unhelpful here—and in many places where modern writers use ac. IacobusAmor 13:34, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ac (atque)
Disputatio:Cinerella

message: Habemus hanc historiam Latine? "Cinderella" est nomen Anglicum. Nescio quo nomine debemus uti in lingua Latina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cinerella Victor Barocas. Fabulae Mirabiles. Pro Scientia. Hippocrene Books, NY. 2000.

text: also

text: Tres porcelli

text: Tibicen Versicolor

text: Rumpelstiltskin

text: Lacernella Rubra

text: Rapunzella

text: Nostrae Vestes Imperatoris

text: Iax et Fabae Magicae

text: Nivea et Septem Homunculi

text: Auricoma et Tres Ursi

text: Hansellus et Gretella

text: Bella Dormiens

text: --Ioscius (disp) 13:32, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :This is so funny. I actually just thought of writing an article about Cinderella as I was driving back home today. Another name I came up with for Cinderella in Latin is "Cinerentola", from the Italian "Cenerentola". Does anyone on Vicipaedia have a preference for "Cenerentola" or "Cinerella"? -Kedemus 07:19, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Cinerentola is nice, but we have to prefer Cinerella for our title because this is the form that already exists in print in Latin: see Ioscius's citation of the Victor Barocas book above. Evidently Barocas based his choice on the Latin word cinera "ashes", which was quite reasonable. But once you've published a Latin version of the story with Cinerentola as main character, we can consider changing!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The Latin word for ash is actually "cinis, cineris". The Italian "Cenerentola" comes from its word for ash- cenera (I think). But let's see what others have to say. We cannot decide for certain that we want to Latinize a name a certain way based on only one rendering of the name as such. -Kedemus 19:48, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::It is an attestation, Kedeme, that's what we go for around here. See my comments at Disputatio:Iax et Fabae Magicae...--Ioscius (disp) 00:39, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Discipula Latina sum. Veniam vestram peto ut hanc paginam lente scribam. Erit auxilio mihi in Latina discenda. Gratias vobis ago. -- [Anon]
replies: text: Anon: Quis es? IacobusAmor 14:02, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Est Analeigh. Nomen omisi in paginis contribuendis ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petitio
Disputatio:Palatinatus

message: Is ti really vaivodatus? I would have guessed it was with an o (voivodatus), but it must be just the plain translation from Spanish...--Xaverius 15:26, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the text annexed in the page it is "vaivodatus", -us. --Alex1011 07:57, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

message: I thought "vaivodatus" is "ducatus"? --Alex1011 07:59, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to English vicipaedia "palatinatus" seems to be the official Latin name. --Alex1011 08:31, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ducatus