lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Northville (Michigania)

message: ... that the source given for the name "Villaseptentrionalis" is about as reliable as Wikipedia. If there isn't a real honest Latin source for the name, the article will get renamed Northville (Michigania). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, if the URL is any indication, the source given belongs to User:Fppro, who is the person who added 'Villaseptentrionalis' to this wiki in the first place.  Citing oneself is generally not a good way to prove one's point.  (On its own merits, that site contains two pages: the one linked to, and a blog post linking to it—not exactly a reference of the highest authority.)  —Mucius Tever 22:23, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :That is what I sort of felt -- thanks for verifying, Myces!

text: :For information, Latin rarely makes compound words simply by chaining noun + adjective. That's why "Villaseptentrionalis" looked wrong and attracted attention. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Are you trying to say that we have to name my town its English name in Latin?  Is Latin now unchangeable?  Who decided the Latin name for Jackson ("Jackfilius")?  That makes less sense than "village of the north."fppro
replies: text: :::Our policies on Latin names etc. are clear: see VP:TNP, or follow the link to the English version of that page. We don't invent Latin names. You're welcome to contribute, but please don't create a "source" elsewhere and link to it from here: that's just a waste of time.

text: :::Thanks, it was useful to mention "Jackfilius". That was a really bad case, and shouldn't have survived on the page as long as it did. I have now deleted it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a sort of feeling
Disputatio Categoriae:Verba Polynesia mutuata

message: Question a: Would it be OK to make it "Verba Polynesia mutuata" (i.e., that have been borrowed into other languages)? Seems to be roughly the same concept, and that's the style that Fabullus and I worked out when discussing Arabic words. See :Categoria:Verba Arabica mutuata.
Question b: the page Morinda citrifolia doesn't at present seem to explain how it relates to this category. But I'm sure there's a reason. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Formulae:Translatio hebdomadalis

message: Propono hanc conversionem Latinam vocis "Bukit Timah":
Collis Stannifer --MARCVS 05:08, 13 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Omnes paene linguae verbo "Video" utuntur neque vertunt. - "Video" hoc sensu est ars ("Ars Video") aut instrumentum ("cassetta") aut pellicula; "defigmentorem" nescio (qualitas defigmentorum motorum = qualitas hominum in motu, qui aliqua defingunt? - Propono "Qualitas Video".

message: Disputatio in pagina Aethiops non albescit translata est.--Utilo (disputatio) 10:17, 31 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing the Ethiopian white
Disputatio:Punica granatum

message: It seems unlikely to me that "Punica malus" is a Linnaean synonym (as we claim here, and as en:wiki also currently claims). The en:wiki layout betrays some ignorance ("Linnaeus, 1758" would be correct for zoological names, not botanical). Anyway, why would Linnaeus devise two names for this very recognisable plant? I suspect that "punica malus" is a pre-Linnaean Latin name (alternative to "malus punica") and doesn't belong in the taxobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions! and in any case, Punica malus could only be the tree, not the fruit, which would presumably in colloquial diction be punica malum (these being one of those uncommon cases where the species epithet is a noun, not an adjective). For synonyms listed in 1816, see here: Curtis's Botanical Magazine. Note that the old custom was to capitalize the species epithet when it was a noun; for reference, Hortus Third (1976) maintained this custom, while acknowledging that lowercasing the epithet was becoming the universal practice. IacobusAmor 12:15, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :And I maintained it, consciously following the Hortus Third example, in my Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. I did it in that book because it helped to show which species names had a Graeco-Latin origin. But you're right, it is now the opposite of a universal practice. (An asteroidal practice?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 16 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Synonym"
Disputatio:Botanice

message: Cur est Botanice rectius? Ecce Linnaeus qui dixit: "Botanice est scientia...quae Vegetabilium cognitionem tradit" et quoque " Botanica est Scientiae naturalis pars, cujus ope felicissime, et minimo negotio plantae cognoscuntur, et in memoria retinentur." et "Lud^.vig. aphor, i, Botanica est scientia vegetabilium , s. cognitio eorum, quae per plantas, et in plantis fiunt."--24.183.186.151 14:36, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecce et Google books : Ioannis Milleri Illustratio systematis sexualis Linnaeani--24.183.186.151 14:49, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Verbo rectius non usus sum; vide autem William T. Stearn, Botanical Latin, third edition (London: 1983, David & Charles), p. 394:
replies: text: ::"botanic, botanical: botanicus (adj. A). Botanist: botanicus (s.m. II). Botany: botanice (s.f. I), gen sing. botanices; phytologia (s.f. I), gen. sing. phytologiae. . . . botanices professor, professor of botany."

text: :Semejantes, supongo, sean ethice (gen. ethices) et ethica (gen. ethicae). IacobusAmor 15:07, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: De "Botanice" et "Botanica" nominibus
Disputatio:Michael Dukakis

message: Secundum regulas nostras titulus debet esse Michael Dukakis (ut credo) quia Americanus est, minime Graecus; nomen eius Anglice communiter scribitur, minime Neograece; nobis enim oportet orthographiam Anglicam cognominis accipere. Alii consentiunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-movendum?
Disputatio Categoriae:Flores

message: Inquit Andrew: "Flowers are not a subset of florists. Maybe a vide etiam would serve, when we have some florists."—According to Wikipedia, flowers ARE a subset of florists, of which we already have fifteen: the articles so far assembled under "Category:Florists" are:
replies: text: :en:1-800-Flowers
replies: text: :en:Bloomex

text: :en:Bunches Florapost

text: :en:Florists' Transworld Delivery

text: :en:Iflorist

text: :en:Interflora

text: :en:Petals Network

text: :en:ProFlowers

text: :en:Ian Prosser (florist)

text: :en:ReadyFlowers

text: :en:Rossi & Rovetti

text: :en:Phil Rulloda

text: :en:Constance Spry

text: :en:Teleflora

text: :en:Teleflorist
What's the rationale in favor of knocking the scaffolding out from under further construction? IacobusAmor 11:59, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Florists
Disputatio:Trilobita

message: Scilicet solum in Vicipaedia est ipsum Trilobitae verbum "binomen"! IacobusAmor 12:40, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Meaning that a "binomen" by definition must be two words. How right you are. I suggest the following pattern when we are talking about a one-word scientific name:
replies: text: : Trilobita (nomen zoologicum a Walch anno 1771 inventum) ...

text: I've made this change on the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Or in honor of the genus, you could call it a "trinomen"! IacobusAmor 13:00, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Trilobita (binomen a Walch anno 1771)"
Disputatio:La révolution Wikipédia

message: ... I'm citing my own book in a footnote here. I think that's reasonable -- it does discuss the background of La révolution Wikipédia at length -- but if anyone disagrees please just delete the footnote! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:20, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Macte virtute! --Neander 21:38, 19 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice that ...
Disputatio:Claudius Lévi-Strauss

message: Pictus fabulosus iocose insertus? -- Titus Tatius 17:54, 21 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictus 

message: Titi, intellegis iussum "Lifetime"? IacobusAmor 13:48, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifetime
Disputatio:Piper (genus)

message: "Nomen etiam pro quibusdam generis Clematis plantis olim adhibitum est." This worried me, so I checked. The en:wiki article isn't clear at this point, but what it is trying to say is that the English term "pepper vine", not the Latin word "piper", was used in that way. This is confirmed by :en:Clematis, which says "Clematis was called pepper vine by early travelers and pioneers of the American Old West". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:45, 21 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite
Disputatio Categoriae:Plantae edules

message: According to Cassell's, English 'edible' is Latin esculentus and edulis. According to Stearn's Botanical Latin, English 'edible' is Latin edibilis, edulis, and esculentus. Whence this mysterious comestibilis? IacobusAmor 14:05, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good French word. I must have re-imagined it as Latin :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a good spanish word too! whic comes from late Latin comestibilis, nonetheless http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?TIPO_HTML=2&TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=comestible --Xaverius 17:18, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Suadetur ut haec commentatio cum Categoria:Plantae comestibiles contribuatur."
Disputatio:Mit brennender Sorge

message: Cur titulus in Theodiscum conversus (non titulus Latinus)? IacobusAmor 23:21, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quia titulum Latinum non habet haec encyclica. Etiam versiones Anglica et Italiana titulum Theodiscum habent. --Neander 23:53, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :nam Theodisce scripta est--213.3.71.236 03:03, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cur?
Disputatio:Ilaria (genus)

message: Hendrice, it's encouraging that you're trying to add definitions, but isn't there a guide to zoological grammar that can help you, much as Stearn's Botanical Latin helps botanists? It's hard to believe that some such resource isn't available. Many zoologists must be more interested in taxonomy than in Latin, and what they need is a simple set of "quick and dirty" rules that will put them on the right path in a hurry. Perhaps somebody who knows the field of zoological Latin will offer suggestions. What you've written in
replies: text: genus exstincta Marsupialia, distributio fossilium Cretaceum in Australia
means

text: a genus. Extinct marsupials. A distribution of fossils. The Cretaceous in Australia.
To link the words in a meaningful way requires more grammatical indications. IacobusAmor 11:54, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Latine, non barbare loquimini, quaeso! [Usor ignotus.]
replies: text: ::Scilicet, amice, sed noster zoologus eam ut videtur quam minime intellegit. IacobusAmor 12:06, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ad disputandum: Genus extinctorum marsupialium cum distributione fossilium Cretaceorum in Australia? Sat bonum mihi videtur.
thread_title: Grammar
Disputatio:Leicestria

message: The Roman name of this city was Ratae Corieltauvorum; should this page not therefore redirect to Ratae Corieltauvorum, and that page begin with:
 Ratae Corieltauvorum, seu Leicestria,....
vide :en:Ratae Corieltauvorum  
Jpb1301 23:52, 23 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where a medieval/modern Latin name of a city differs completely from the ancient one we often prefer the later version. I suppose we do it because it's likely that more articles and links will be relevant to to the later period. But there's no rule. Do you have a really "reliable source" for Ratae Corieltauvorum? The tribal name has only recently become known in that form. I don't know offhand what the source is and whether it supplies the full town name as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Often this allows us to have two pages, one on the Roman colonial town, and one on the modern city. Fac ergo dupliciter! --Ioscius (disp) 10:25, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Jpb sent me a source reference by email: . I think maybe Ioscius's answer is the best: this is what en:wiki has done, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratae Corieltauvi
Disputatio:Ficus tinctoria

message: No agreement of noun and adjective: example of how botanical Latin doesn't make sense sometimes--24.183.186.151 23:17, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: E.g.? IacobusAmor 23:28, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Legi "Ficus tinctoria" sed putavi nomen "ficus tinctorius" rectum. Nunc autem legi apud Lewis et Short: " The declension and gender were disputed even among the ancients". fi!--24.183.186.151 23:33, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yeah, my dictionary says masculine, too, but the evidence is pretty strong for preferring feminine:
replies: text: :::Varr. L. L. 9, § 80: Item negant esse analogias, quod alii dicunt cupressus, alii cupressi, item de ficis platanis et plerisque arboribus, de quibus alii extremum US, alii EI faciunt. Id est falsum: nam debent dici E et I, fici ut nummi, quod est ut nummis ficis, ut nummorum ficorum. Si essent plures ficus, essent ut manus; diceremus ut manibus, sic ficibus, et ut manuum, sic ficuum, neque has ficos diceremus, sed ficus, ut non manos appellamus, sed manus, nec consuetudo diceret singularis obliquos casus huius fici neque hac fico, ut non dicit huius mani, sed huius manus, nec hac mano, sed hac manu.

text: :::Mart. 1, 65, 4: "cum dixi ficus, rides quasi barbara verba, Et dici ficos, Caeciliane, jubes. Dicemus ficus, quas scimus in arbore nasci: Dicemus ficos, Caeciliane, tuas."

text: :::Plin. 16, 31, 55: "fici, quarum radices longissimae"

text: :::Quint. 6, 3, 88: "sub una ficu"

text: ::Oddly the ficus sycamorus seems to be the only species with a Latinate botnanical name in masculine... --Ioscius (disp) 23:46, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Even that's OK, because Sycomorus there is a noun, not an adjective; we know this because it's capitalized in Hortus Third, which maintains the old & correct tradition of capitalizing the species epithet when it's a noun and lowercasing it when it's an adjective. ¶ I suppose with ficus, the thinking was that it's a tree, and the default for trees is feminine, so it must be feminine. IacobusAmor 23:52, 24 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

text: :::The entry in  gives "ficus" as f. (m.), whatever that means. Yes, the default for trees is feminine. Curously, in modern French there's been a switch: the default for trees is masculine, for fruits feminine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: de genere adiectivi
Disputatio Formulae:De Roma antiqua

message: Gratias agimus, o anonyme, ob formulam. Sed saepe maior est paginis ipsis in quibus imposuisti, id quod mihi ridiculum videtur. (Aliis fortasse aliter videtur!) An possumus collapsare, sicut feci in ? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:58, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Id nunc feci. Sed aliis, si dissentiunt, revertere licet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:06, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratias agimus
Disputatio:Regiones Italiae Augustae

message: Titulum ["Regiones Italicae Augustae"] non intellego. Haec sunt "Regiones Italiae ab Augusto discriptae"? seu fortasse "Regiones Italiae Augustanae"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Titulum denuo leviter mutavi in "Regiones Italiae Augustae". Necesse est verbum "Italiae" retinere quia Augustus insuper regiones quattuordeciom urbis Romae discripsit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:11, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Iaponiensis Communistica Factio

message: Paulisper miror te amba adiectiva nomini praeposuisse, quod mea quidem sententia ab optimo veterum usu abscedit. Ideo dubito an Factio communistica Iaponensis melior sit inscriptio.--Ceylon 18:50, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiam, adiectivum usitatissimum est Iaponica. Vox Iaponensis multo rarior est, et Iaponiensis quidem minus. Gabriel Svoboda 19:35, 25 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordo adiectivorum
Disputatio:Vicia (discretiva)

message: The reason for it is that in classical Latin Vicia is the name of a cultivated species, the one that we now know botanically as Vicia sativa; while in botanical Latin it's the name of a genus, Vicia (genus). We often have to make that kind of distinction, and I think it's necessary here. So I'm against deletion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I undeleted it, seconds after I'd proposed it for deletion. But more thinking needs to be done here. IacobusAmor 16:21, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :What I'd suggest is that, in keeping with standard taxonomical usage elsewhere in Vicipaedia, there be an article Vicia that deals with the genus, and an article Vicia sativa that deals with this species. The latter article might begin "Vicia sativa, antique vicia, est. . . ," with textual material about antique understandings then going into a subsection of the latter article. At the moment, Vicia is a disambiguation page, not a page about the genus, which has to be named Vicia (genus). IacobusAmor 16:28, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discretiva
Disputatio:Zeus

message: Paululum miror, quo ex fonte hausta sit ista "Dia" forma ablativi. Praeterea, deest accusativus. --Neander 22:30, 26 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ..."Dia" est forma accusativa quae abest.  Graeci ablativo carent.  —Mucius Tever 04:19, 27 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : Sine ablativo difficillimum est de ulla re Latine scribere. Cum igitur de illo deo scribimus, vix omnino possumus hoc Graecum nomen declinare (tantummodo nominativo adhibito commemorare). Itaque re vera id miratus sum, quo consilio ista declinationis tabula proposita sit. --Neander 01:07, 28 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Posui litteras Graecas in tabulam ut videamus declinationem Graecam esse. Reddam in Latinum ut ostendeam hanc tabulam non esse usui Latino. (Latine scilicet hic deus Iuppiter vocatur, non Zeus;  est John Dory.  Possumus scribere in Iuppiter, e.g. partem ==Apud Graecos== ubi dicimus "Graece Iuppiter Ζεύς vocatur, et crediderunt...", tunc dicimus quid Graeci dicunt de Iove ubi a religione Romana differt.)  —Mucius Tever 11:07, 28 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declinatio nominis
Disputatio:Stephanus Blancardus

message: Recensor vicipaediae Batavus T. Tichelaar/Taksen mihi persuasit Blancardum defunxisse non - ut CAMENA et nonnullae aliae paginae interretiales volunt - anno 1702, sed - ut DBNL (Digitalis Bibliotheca Nederlandicarum Litterarum) vult, utque T. Tichelaar teste Tabularium Urbis Amstelodamense comprobat - anno 1704. Quod nunc in pagina correxi. --Fabullus 09:20, 27 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quo annus mortuus sit
Disputatio:Iacobus Ussher

message: De: "Gentilicium non latinizandum nisi citatio inveniatur."—Ecce: Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Ægyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. Jacobo Usserio armachano digestore. Ex Openlibrary.org. Ergo, nomen ut videtur est Jacobus Usserius vel nostris typis Iacobus Usserius. IacobusAmor 19:02, 30 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Bartholomaeus Casaus

message: A casaus??? Do you know that "de las casas" is spanish for "of the hauses", don't you?--190.22.108.62 00:04, 31 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do know it, but we haven't made this up - apparently he wrote his name like that in Latin!--Xaverius 00:17, 31 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :except that the cited sources don't confirm the a. Since Casaus doesn't look like an ablative, I wonder if the a is just wrong. Does anyone remember where we got it from? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 31 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Nomine
Disputatio Categoriae:Species Monotrematum exstinctum

message: Nunc: Species Monotrematum exstinctum. Recte, ut videtur: Species Monotrematum exstinctae vel fortasse melius Exstinctae Momotrematum species. IacobusAmor 19:21, 3 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen categoriae
Disputatio:Burkina Faso

message: vere est verbum perihodos, i, f.,(periodo, QUINT. 9, 4, 125 e a. ) aut periodUS  sed rarus, puto aetas meliore verbum esse--Helveticus montanus 17:25, 7 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

message: It seems to me that Morgan's "Burkina" and Benedict's "Burkina Fasana" (footnotes 2 and 3) are barbarisms -- infallible though both authors may have been in every other way. "Burkina Faso" is a meaningful expression in the local language, and thus indivisible and indeclinable in the context of another language. Benedict is contradicted by his own chancellery, which elsewhere writes "Burkina Faso" (see footnote 1, and there were other examples). So I am against moving this.
... happy, though, to accept "Burkina Fasanus" as adjective on papal authority, comparable in its formation with "republicanus" and "Montepessulanus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:09, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we know that the adjective burkinensis is attested: http://www.bacterio.net/anaeroarcus.html. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:20, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

text: True, I overlooked the etymology; it would be especially weird to make faso an adjective modifying Burkina when it is a noun modified by Burkina. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:00, 28 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine 

message: Hanc sententiam—"Terra antiqua nomine Graeco-Latino classico "Melanogaetulia" cognita est."—removi, quia coniunctionem praecipuam inter civitatem hodiernam et regionem antiquam non vidi. Smith dicit "the southern Gaetulians mingled their blood with their Negro neighbours, the Nigritae, thus giving origin to a people called the Melanogaetuli, or Black Gaetulians (Μελανογαιτοῦλοι, Ptol. 4.6.16 ; Agathem. 2.5) ... The ancient Gaetulia included the S. regions of Marocco, as well as the W. part of the Great Desert." Lewis et Short quoque dicunt "Gaetūli ... = Γαιτοῦλοι, a people of northwestern Africa, south of the Mauri and Numidae, in the modern Morocco". Fontes primarios Latinos non legi, itaque si erravi, quaeso, corrigite! Lesgles (disputatio) 19:57, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melanogaetulia
Disputatio:Venetiae

message: Re vera est nomen plurale? Habemus fontem? --Xaverius 18:53, 7 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Czech/Slovak exonym Benátky is plural, but of course it doesn't prove anything. Nevertheless, "in Venetiis" has some Google attestations. Gabriel Svoboda 20:49, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
"Bis per annum" mutandum est in "bis anno" (Cic. Pomp. 31).

message: Memor puerilium annorum cum didicerim Athenas lumen (non lumina) Graeciae fuisse correxi: Venetiae esse urbem ac municipium. Si displicet, re-emendetis. - Bavarese (disputatio) 16:56, 12 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venetiae sunt ''urbs'', non ''urbes'' 

message: Adnotationem, quam de more veneto calendarii feci, haud apte collocata esse mi videtur. Si cui vestrum subvenit, quo modo id curetur, faciat quaeso vel proponat. --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:13, 25 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  more veneto
Disputatio:Equilium

message: Nomen Equilii non potest simpliciter ab equo esse. Itaque mihi visum est etymologiam proponere, quae morphologice credibilior sit. Nam ab equo est equile (ut ab ovi est ovile), et ab equili est Equilium (nomen collectivum). --Neander 01:26, 9 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De etymologia