lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Gibuti

message: The reference Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1956) has:
* p. 114: "Vicariatum denique de Rabat ad archidioecesis dignitatem, Vicariatum vero Ghardaiensem in Sahara ad dioecesis ordinem perducimus, ac Praefecturam denique de Gibuti dioecesim pariter creamus:"
* p. 889 (in "Index nominum dioecesium vicariatuum, etc."): "Gibuti, 114."
* p. 903: "dioeceses effectae : de Bouaché, de Sokodé, Arcis Lamy, da Morondava, de Gibuti, 114"
A genitive Gibuti doesn't seem to make sense on p. 114 as there is "de" requiring an ablative and besides "Gibuti" just the accusative "dioecesim". Even if it would be a genitive, it could belong to *Gibutus (-i, m. or f.), *Gibutum (-i, n.), *Gibuti (indecl.). Gibutum might then be more likely especially by the time but would be a conjecture, a guess. However, with p. 889 and 903 it seems like the text uses an indeclinable Gibuti similar to an English and French Djibouti, Italian Gibuti, German Dschibuti etc. By the way, this Latinitas has "Gibuti [Italian]  Dijbouti [French/English]  Dschibouti [German] | Dzibuti, n. Non inclinatur in casus. Sic urbs princeps Territorii Gallici Afarensium et Iassanorum appellatur." -80.133.115.8 10:34, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I wondered if "Gibuti" is indeclinable in the AAS volume. It may must be so. "Dzi-" in any case is not wrong. The fact seems to be that no Latin name is really well supported, either for the country or for the city. Thanks for making me look again at this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Perhaps one of the modern Latin radiophonic sites (Bremen & Finland) mentions it. Is there a way of searching their texts? Google may not be able to do it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Meanwhile I found a further instance of Gibuti (indecl.) in Latin text, so I'll move the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::@IacobusAmor: www.radiobremen.de/nordwestradio/latein/index.html (some weeks ago: www.radiobremen.de/nachrichten/latein/index.html) has "Suche" (= Search) at the top, and yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2013/05/24/nuntii-latini has a search symbol at the top and haku.yle.fi/?q= . Both searches do not support * (e.g. civitat* for finding civitatis, civitatem etc.), and don't have any results for Gibuti, Gibutum, Gibuto, Dzibuti, Dzibutum, Dzibuto, Djibuti, Djibutum, Djibuto. -80.133.96.46 05:20, 13 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  name and reference
Disputatio:Iulius Magg

message: No need to have put a dubsig on apoplexia. Had you gone to the Quaerere box and typed "apoplexia,"  you'd have found an article on that topic: apoplexia cerebri. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:26, 9 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Graecii (Magg) pro fabrica (...) laborabat" → (Magg) worked at Graz for the factory

text: Non vicarium sed vicarius erat.

text: Ave, --Jojhnjoy (disputatio) 18:56, 9 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubsigs

message: Salve! Pauca mutavi.
Adiectivum de Graecium tractum fortasse est Graecianus; intellegitur sane, sed testimonio caret.  
Lat. pro raro est eng. for vel theod. für, quamquam id persaepe - ne dicam persaepissime - in nostra vicipaedia legitur; vel instead of someone/something significat vel eo vocabulo omnino utendum est, si e contrario contra dicitur: velut certare pro/contra aliquam rem. De qua re plura si vis legere (theodisce), inspicias Dictionarium Georges theod-lat. sub voce für: http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1910. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:34, 10 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  mutationes 

message: Mihi plane non liquet, quid ea voce - sive sit futurum exactum sive coniunctivus temporis perfecti - exprimatur. Semper addiscendi aliquid cupidus spero a te certiorem me factum iri. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:55, 10 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "construxerit" coniunctivus temporis perfecti est. Theodisce: Er hätte erbauen sollen. Magg bello mundano primo mandatum accepit construere fabricae chalybis. Utrum fabricam chalybis construxit necne illam construxerit, nescio. Ave, --Jojhnjoy (disputatio) 14:18, 10 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Salve! Habesne ergo in mente: Fabricam construere iussus est, sed erui non potest, an constructa sit. --Bavarese (disputatio) 21:44, 12 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  construxerit
Disputatio Formulae:Primi ministri Regni Britanniarum 1945–

message: Hanc formulam ex illa, quae nunc Formula:Primi ministri Britannici 1721–1945 intitulatur, separavi. De auctoribus prioribus vide historiam illae formulae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 11 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons
Disputatio Categoriae:Anatomici

message: Medicus P. Verheyen anno 1706 in sua Corporis Humani Anatomia verbum anatomici usus erat. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 19:16, 13 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita. Categoriam iamdudum creavi ... fortasse nullis lexicis perlectis! Mea culpa. Categoriam movendam suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:25, 13 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  mota ex ''Disputatio Categoriae:Anatomi''
Disputatio:Flumen Magdalenae

message: I took out the Spanish external link which was the footnote reference for the "Rio Grande de la Magdalena" version of the name, because, unless I missed something, the page doesn't mention that version of the name. Doesn't matter so much to us, I guess, because it's a Spanish name and I've now sourced two Latin names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I've been working at lightning speed to boost our 10K score, and the usual monthly deadline seems to be today. There will be loose ends! ¶ The Latin lemmata I was using had already been coded as hyperlinks in Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:23, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, I believe you. As we both know, our unsourced lists are the most unreliable things we have. But I felt sure I could source those names via intrepid 19th century botanists. You won't mind, then, if I move a couple more pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Indeed. Move away! We must respect the sources! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rio Grande ...
Disputatio:Flumen Tocantins

message: Tocantinensis would appear to be a well-established adjective. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:26, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is: ideal for things that are named after the river, or after the state which is itself named after the river. Latin authors seem to use "Tocantins" as the name of the river, so far as I have found.

text: I added a footnote mentioning the adjective. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 15 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Lacus Maracaibo

message: I can't imagine why we need any footnotes, let alone fourteen, to support the bland and uncontroversial claims in the first two sentences. Unless any of them belong in a bibliography or external links section, they should be deleted, shouldn't they? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:54, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have time to convert them to a bibliography (which I prefer); they came straight from the English wiki. ¶ However, they do have a certain usefulness in the 10K competition. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:35, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I understood that, hence my hesitation. OK, one of us no doubt will undertake some of that conversion. No problem Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many footnotes
Disputatio:Lacus Nicaragua

message: The sources give us plenty of choices. The term "mare dulce" is often cited, but I haven't found it used in Latin text in the context of Nicaragua.
There's no need to move, unless we prefer the term "Lacus Nicaraguensis" as being simpler to deal with in Latin (since "Lacus Nicaragua" has the appearance of two genders). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:13, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Lacus Eyre

message: I don't find "Eyrianus" (except with a completely different origin and sense), but I do find the Australian fossil flamingo "Phoeniconotius eyrensis". There is at least one Latin reference to "Lacus Eyre" and a genitive "Eyrei", both here on page 181 col. 2 near the bottom. So we could accept "Lacus Eyre", or construct "Lacus Eyrensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way is fine with me. I created it from an already existing link, which (one now sees) has been in place since 2006, inserted anonymously, perhaps by our unknown geographer. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:33, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks. I then found a second attested Latin name, but "Lacus Eyre" seems the simplest, so I moved to that form. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:04, 17 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Lacus Vinnipega

message: De: "Nomen Francogallicum haud nobis relevat?" It's from en:Lake Winnipeg. Perhaps because French is an official language of the country? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonable for it to be the alternative language offered on the English page. Since English is surely the majority language in the relevant region, I'd suggest it would make more sense on the Latin page to offer English as alternative in this case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 16 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Francogallice?
Disputatio:Lamina cuprina Lagunensis

message: Lamina Cuprea Lacunae Inscriptionis Anglice = 'The Copperplate of Lacuna (of the) Inscription', sed rectum lemma Anglicum est 'Laguna Copperplate Inscription,' quod vicissim Latine fortasse erit Inscriptio Laminae Cuprinae Lacun(ae/ensis)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:42, 18 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Melius sit mihi Inscriptio Laminae Cuprinae Lacunae. Tibi/Vobis?--Jondel (disputatio) 14:54, 18 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :The standard Latin names of inscribed objects, e.g. Discus Phaestius and Tabulae Iguvinae, often omit the word "inscriptio". That would make a simpler title, and, after all, the inscription is not really "of" a copper plate. It's engraved "on" or "in" a copper plate, which doesn't seem a typical use of the genitive.

text: :Those same Latin names nearly always use the adjective form of the place name, like the two I cited. For this place name I can find the adjective "Lagunensis" (in several biological names).

text: :"Cuprea" and "cuprina" seem equivalent. So my first choice would be "Lamina cuprea/cuprina Lagunensis", but a longer title as suggested by Iacobus, e.g. "Inscriptio laminae cupreae/cuprinae Lagunensis" would work too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 19 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, there is the Inscriptio Duenos. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 20 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Very true! Overtime we would need to overfamiliarize ourselves with the  mainstream Latin and ignore some exceptions that serve to cconfuse.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:20, 21 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestions Andrew  and  Iacobus! I actually wanted to remove the 'inscription' translation as there is ussually a compulsion to translate  word for word. I hope everyone is fine with "Lamina cuprinae Lagunensis" (?).--Jondel (disputatio) 07:16, 20 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

text: OK except there was no reason for "cuprinae": it's an adjective agreeing with "Lamina", so "cuprina". So I went ahead and did the move to ensure accuracy, but if anyone isn't happy, please continue to discuss and we can move again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 20 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
I mistakenly added 'e'  to cuprina. Both  are  fine,thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:11, 20 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Lien

message: To judge from Lewis & Short, "colat" does mean it filters, but the object should be the fluid that is purified, so "sanguinem colat" it filters the blood. I suppose you might put the impurities in an ablative absolute, e.g. "sanguinem colat, bacteriis reiectis". There might well be other ways: this is just a quick glance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Andrew. I will be putting impurities in ablative absolute and blood word"sanguinem" in accusative.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:56, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Neander for your corrections!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:54, 29 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colat
Disputatio:Urbs Lacus Salsi

message: "Civitas" is not wrong, but we usually avoid using "civitas" for cities because it's our standard word for a country. So I'd prefer to move this back to "Urbs", now that we have two sources for that form. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:48, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Me too. According to the Catholic Hierarchy site, the diocese name gained the word "city" (and hence "civitas") only in 1951, so we needn't attach too much weight to it. Lesgles (disputatio) 10:28, 29 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Prasia Elysiorum

message: Miasto przyszłości has been translated "Urbs de futuro". I think this won't work -- "de" does not really mean of in Latin, though people often assume it does. It would be better to make a translation direct from Polish, which I can't do, but, given what I'm told, my best try is "Urbs futura". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:52, 30 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Google gives for Miasto przyszłości in German "Die Stadt der Zukunft" which would be in English "The city of the future". --Alex1011 (disputatio) 19:57, 18 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sententia"
Disputatio:The Princess Bride

message: Johnhillis, mutasti
replies: text: digitabulum viri sex digitos habens = a man's six-fingered glove
in

text: digitabulum viri sex digitos habentis = a glove of a six-fingered man
So he has three fingers on each hand? ¶ Incidentally, according to Traupman (but not L&S), the finger of a glove is digitale, so if the first version is OK after all, perhaps better: digitabulum viri sex digitalia habens. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:12, 1 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: digitabulum
Disputatio:Africa Latina

message: An re vera Egger "Africam Latinam" hoc modo definit? Si ita sit, oportet Hispaniam (Ceuta, Melilla, insulae Canariae) et Portugalliam (Madeira) addere. Sed meá mente haec nota, qua Egger citatur, verbatim a pagina America Latina dempta est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 1 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Verba :en:Latin Africa apud Vicipaediam Anglicam (similiter apud alias linguas nonnullas) rediriguntur ad :en:United States of Latin Africa, quae definitionem aliam habet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 1 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitio
Disputatio:America

message: I deleted several of the notes from the first sentences. They were from English dictionaries and of little or no use in a Latin encyclopedia so far as I could see. I retained, but abridged, an English quotation that gives the origin of the Latin name, which is surely relevant!
I also deleted the Latin form "Americae" (pl.) It sounded to me like a retro-translation from English the Americas, which is fine as long as some reliable Latin source has used the term before us: hence on 11 June I tagged it "Fontes desiderati". The citations added were all English, so they didn't help. The term could be restored by all means, but with a proper source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:32, 1 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I atoned just a little bit for my deletion spree by adding a reference from modern Latin for America (not difficult, though we didn't have one before) and one that defines it as a terra continens, not a supercontinens, doubly useful therefore. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:47, 1 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notae nobis inutiles?
Disputatio:Liga BFA

message: Care 2806:105e:a:da76:51af:2277:eb3f:ba1c, confer hoc systema mendorum:
replies: text: Titulus: Liga BFA

text: Lemma: Arubaanse Division Honor

text: Lemma in Latinum conversum: Foedus Bahamae
Intellegis has res inter se male congruere? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 6 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecce
Disputatio:Stopselclub

message: beneficii auctores sunt = are doers of charity
--Stopselliese (disputatio) 16:17, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Latina (LA)	English (EN)        	Deutsch (DE)
consumo    	waste, use up       	ich brauche auf, ich verschwende, ich verwende
beneficium 	kindness, well-doing	Wohltat
auctor     	doer, maker         	Förderer, Unterstützer
           	                    	
           	                    	
replies: text: That is not normal Latin, and not normal English either. You cannot write a foreign language from dictionaries. Write what you mean here in your own language and probably someone will understand it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:37, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Don't worry, I checked the English page and I get it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thank you for the help.--Stopselliese (disputatio) 18:31, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  vocabulorum index
Disputatio:Manufactura

message: Prima sententia et nexus Interwiki ad handicraft spectare videntur, sed reliquum (large-scale) manufacturing indicat (pro qua notione iam habemus rerum fabricatio). Manufactura est vocabulum recens (anni 1458 secundum OED) et propter etymologiam fortasse ambiguum, itaque non mihi utile videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:06, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apud Cassell's: handicraft = artificium; handiwork = opus & opificium; manufacture = fabrica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

text: Apud Traupman: handicraft = artificium; handiwork = opificium; manufacture = fabrica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio Categoriae:Chalcographi

message: Some of these people may have been miscategorized. 'Chalcography' is engraving specifically on copper (so the English, French, and German wikis), or on copper or zinc (so the Italian wiki), or apparently on any metal (so the Spanish wiki), so any who engraved only on wood or stone belong elsewhere. Engraving in general seems to be scalptura (Cassell's) and/or caelatura (Traupman). And then what is 'etching' (neither Cassells nor Traupman has it)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:40, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Morgan gives "rasio" for etching in general, from "rado" and presumably influenced by German "Rasierung," citing Helfer.  He concurs that "chalcographia" is engraving on metal.  An engraver then might be a "rasor," which is the regular formation but I don't find it in my lexica;  Morgan also suggests "glyptes" (-ae, m) but this may also be specifically for engraving on metal.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:09, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Inscriptio
Disputatio:Gualterus Ophamilius

message: Gualterius est forma adhibita a persona descripta, ut videatur in imaagine subscriptionis. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 00:31, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Erroneam opinionem Carusii reportare non opportet, ut credo, sed exemplum falsitatum constitit. Ideoque ad alium locum transtuli. Nexum eliminavi quia Gualterum nostrum textuum quolibet Gualtero Anglico adscriptorum auctorem non esse clarissime comprobatum est. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 21:45, 27 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alia
Disputatio:Mundus vetus

message: Quis citare potest verba "mundus vetus" seu "vetus mundus" Latine adhibita, continentes Europam Africam Asiam significantes? De libro, quem in nota subiuncta citavi, dubito: textum legere non possum! Alibi ubi haec verba reperio, mundum aut antediluvianum aut antemillenniarem antemillennarium significant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic? et hic? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Macte! Gratias tibi ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 14 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De significatione
Disputatio:Signum manipuli

message: Signum manipuli fuit signum utriusque centuriae (manipuli) legionisque. Verbum 'manipulus' fuit signum militare alternum vexilli exercitus Romani derivaturque ex 'manipulus' stramenticius [1]imposita in culmine asseris, id est etiam, signficante milites pertinentes ad eandem manus. Fuit solum unum signum per manipulum. Primum, signa fuerunt aquila, equus, aper, minotaurus. Postea factus est solum Aquila discedente aliis.[2]
thread_title: Latin

message: The sign (standard) of the maniple was a sign(standard) of both the century (of the maniple) and of the legion. The word manipulus was a military sign other than the vexillus army derived from 'manipulus',a handful of straw, placed on tope of a pole, i.e., soldiers belonging  to the  same team. There was only one sign per maniple. At first the standards were the eagle (the Aquila), the wolf, the minotaur, the horse and the boar. In time there was only the eagle while the rest were abandoned.--Jondel (disputatio) 23:43, 19 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: English
Disputatio Formulae:Opera Shakesperii

message: Does it make sense to have this sub-box on the pages about individual plays? I'm not sure, for example, that someone reading Romeo and Juliet would need a link to Christophorus Marlovius. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:23, 24 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could well be right, especially since our navboxes are always open on hand-held screens, thus taking up a lot of page space. Are you interested enough to unpick this structure? Feel free to do so as far as I'm concerned!

text: I now sometimes include a small link, on the bottom line of a navbox, to a related navbox. That would be a less assertive way to achieve a similar thing, if it's worth linking them at all. See Formula:Continentes for an example: the parameter "sub2" produces the words Capsae cognatae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:50, 24 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, I added a sub2 link to Formula:Shakesperii tituli. Let me know what you think! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:38, 25 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Much better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:06, 25 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptores scaenici Renascentiae Anglici
Disputatio:Tarpeia

message: Certe multas fabulas huius generis in mythologia Graeca invenimus – isn't it better to write: Certe multae fabulae huius generi in mythologia Graeca inventuri sunt? just to avoid 1st person plural? Kicior99 (disputatio) 01:11, 7 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Better still "inveniuntur"? No reason for a future tense either.

text: You raise an interesting point. Some modern writers in English happily use the first person plural in serious writing in this sort of context: others are slightly irritated by it (I'm one of those). Do any Latin authors use the first person plural in this way? I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 7 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :All the time, apparently: http://latin.packhum.org/concordance?q=invenimus (oh well). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 7 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks, Iacobe! How irritating :) In that case, no earthly reason to avoid it, so far as I can see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 7 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Style