Disputatio:Andreas Dalby

The subject of this article is hereby invited to correct any factual or Latinization errors ;) [I confess that I am particularly concerned about how best to say "food writers"] --Iustinus 21:49, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Cibi existimatores? —Myces Tiberinus 00:39, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is what is meant by "food writers." --Iustinus 18:10, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, was just following on from the redirect at en:Food writer. —Myces Tiberinus 02:08, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

The best way I can think of is on the pattern of Scriptores de re militari. I am thus a scriptor de re cibaria (maybe better than alimentaria, which reminds me of the alimentary canal). For glottologi I think we have a Categoria:Linguistae.

Or, of course, de re coquinaria. But that would be "cookery writers", not precisely the same. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

As for the institutions involved, the question is whether I can still find any certificates. Some of them, at least, are in Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:22, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I have made some very minor changes. I think you added 15 years to my CV (i.e. did two versions of the same sentence) but perhaps I misunderstood. I think "Londiniensis" and "Cantabrigiensis" both needed an i that you didn't give them. But feel free to revert me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I may have doubled your CV. I combined the english wikipedia article with your autobiographical cv page, because the former did not seem to be specifically stating where you got your degrees. You are right about Cantabrigiensis, at least that is the name of the school. I don't believe I have a cite for the official name for London, but I'm pretty sure the generic adjective (As opposed to the name of the school) occurs both with and without the i. I don't like linguista in Latin, and generally advocate for glottologus. Your other changes are generally in order, afterall I am inclined to trust your expertise on the subject of this article. --Iustinus 00:28, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Even if I'm an expert on little else, eh? Yes, I too have doubts about "linguista", and would be quite happy with "glottologus" after all ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Contribuo

You ask what case(s) it governs. According to L&S, it goes:

• with accusative alone

• Surely this means that you contribute an accusative object to or with the constructions below...--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:27, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

• with cum + ablative
• with dative

It's a word of many parts! IacobusAmor 15:12, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't really mean "contribute", at least, not in the sense in which one contributes to Vicipaedia! IacobusAmor's note wasn't addressed to me, but I take the hint and have made another attempt at Latinity in that sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Cool, looks better now =].--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:27, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that contribuere doesn't really mean "contribute" is a perpetual thorn in my side! ;) --Iustinus 18:25, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Whitaker doesn't seem to mind this usage. He also gives astruo...--Ioshus ^(disp) 18:42, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Addidi

Addidi ego duos libros hoc anno venundatos: placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 28 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

Placet & placent. --Iustinus 22:59, 13 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Addidi etiam categorias tres de universitatibus a me frequentatis (et iam in textu enumeratis). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 18 Iulii 2015 (UTC)