Disputatio Usoris:Xaverius/Hispania Visigothica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

This is a page about Hispania Visigothica

Intro[fontem recensere]

  1. postea imperio Romano, usque annum 711, cum amissio Hipaniae.
    1. postea is an adverb, you want post. You might say: post imperium Romanum usque ad annum 711. Usque can be a preposition governing accusative, but that is for places. Here it is an adverb, and needs a helping preposition.ok
    2. I'm not getting the sense of cum here. Obviously, if you mean "with" that needs to be amissione. But let me see if I read the whole sentence: "Visigoth Spain is a period of Spanish history after the Roman empire up to year 711, with the amissio Hispaniae". --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, all the cronicles in the middle ages like to say that Spain "was lost" and "the loss of Spain". they also liked to say that Roderick lost both his kingdom and his live in the same battle. In Spanish when naming this we tend to say "...y acaba con la amissio Hispaniae", so I forgot that in Latin it actually has to be declined...--Xaveriusok
    3. I also might throw an intra between spatium and historiam. ok
  2. Visigothi incolebant paeninsulam ubi urbes condiderunt, bella pugnaverunt et artes coluerunt.--Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    1. I would perfectivize my aspect on incolebant, and change word order for SOV.--Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      with incolerunt I get the feeling that they lived once and at one point in the past, whereas with incolebant I tried to say that they were living in a period of time, in the past, but still, a period, not a "fixed point". Nevertheless, I will change it. --Xaverius ok
    2. Ubi is an adverb, not a relative. Use qua.--Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      oops. This will appear all thorugh the text, I'm affraid...--Xaverius
      Yeah I know what you mean, I used coniiecere throughout the whole of Homo suspensus the first time I wrote it. I was pretty embarassed when I discovered that. This is a much more likely error, though, because if you look up "where" in the dictionary, it says ubi!--Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Pugnaverunt probably ought to be gesserunt.ok

Here's the first paragraph, more after breakfast. But you definitely need to capitalize Iudaei and Catholici. --Ioshus (disp) 14:24, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saeculum V[fontem recensere]

  1. sociis Romanorum, Suevos pugnandi causa, sed cum foederem anni 418
    1. What is meant here by sociis Rmanorum? Do you mean that at first they came as friends? --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      yes, they had a treaty in 415 and they were meant to expell the Suevi, but they were recalled then to go to Aquitania --Xaverius
      OK, then we don't need ablative here. We can just say Romanis amici or socii or something. But nominative, whatever it is. --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. I might say (small change), contra Suevos pugnandi causa. ok
    3. cum foederem? --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      foedus is the kind of word I hate, because I can never remember how does it decline. And despite I got the proper stem (foeder-) I guess that the -m should not be there --Xaverius
      Yeah, ablative no m. And yes, foedus is a pain in the ass word. Think genus, generis --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  2. ipse modo, do you mean eodem modo? --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to say "in the same way as the Suevi had taken over" those provinces. I thought that as it was refering back it might be ipse rather than idem --Xaverius
    Let me think on that. --Ioshus (disp) 15:33, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. imperatores foederem Visigothorum invocaverunt--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Which imperatores?--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I have to check that--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Foedus is neuter, so the accusative is foedus, too, furthermore, the proper verb for "to call a treaty" is icere.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      bloody foedus foederis--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. in Hispaniam intravit via Pompaelonis et ad Gallaeciam bellum gessit--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Small point: you don't need to repeat the in. Intrare can work transitively (what you have is not wrong, just extra)--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Do you mean "by the Pompaelonian road"?--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, by the road of Pompaelo--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Perhaps in rather than ad Gallaeciam.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      but they did not get there until next year, hence the ad; towards (I think)--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  5. capiendo Bracaram et Portum Cale, ubi rex Suevorum, Rechiarius captus est--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What case is this gerund capiendo and why?--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to use the ablative, just meaning "while capturing"--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Cum B. et P. Calem cepissent? 'While they were (in the process of) capturing B. and P. C.'? Dum B. et P. C. ceperunt 'While they captured B. and P. C.'? In both instances, you need to think of the relation between the dependent clause and the main clause. I wonder if the whole thought couldn't be expressed in a different way. IacobusAmor 16:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok we have a) the goths entre in Gallaecia in 456. b) They captured Braga and Porto c) there they captured the king of the Sueves. --Xaverius 20:54, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Ok, then simply split it into two sentences Anno 456 bla bla. Visigothi ceperunt B et P.C., qua bla bla bla--Xaverius 09:35, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. ubi => qua again.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I curse ubi... where is the proper where when you need it?--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  6. quam obsidione clauserunt--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. quam?--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      relative femenine accusative, because is refering to the town that they captured--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. imperator romanus mortus est et copiae Visigothorum Aquitania redderunt.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. romanus => Romanus--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. reddere means to return something to somewhere. Redire means inransitively to return. You'll also want in + acc.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is redeo, redivi, reditum, it has been solved.--Xaverius 21:08, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  8. vidit infirmitatem Romanam Hispaniae et provicias de facto cepit et gubernavit.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. infirmitatem Romanam Hispaniae says "the Roman weakness of Spain"...--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Then how should it be phrased to say in rrather that of? plain ablative?--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. I might say gubernare incepit.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  9. Anno 476 Odoacer Romulo Augustulo imperium tolluit--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You need a separating preposition in between tolluit and Augusto, which brings me to my next point :--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Tolluit is not a word. Do you mean sustulit?--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I know that making up words is not good at all, but there are some inventions that siply seem to fit... I meant, of course, sustulit--Xaverius 15:53, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  10. Euricus compulsit Codicem Euricianum: leges primae visigothis scriptae.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Let's just tidy up visigothis => Visigothicae, and get rid of the colon with an ergo r an ita or an in hoc modo.--Ioshus (disp) 15:34, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather keep the dative, because they were visigothic laws just for the Visigoths, not for the Romans. the Romans had their separate laws

--Ioshus (disp) 15:17, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saeculum VI[fontem recensere]

  1. Saeculum VI fuit res discriminis visigothis.
    1. "The sixth century was a thing of division for the Visigoths? Is that what that is trying to say? --Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      it was a       period, of divission/crisis, but I did not want to repeat saeculum--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Aha. Maybe we can personify the Saeculum and say that it divided the Visigoths. Or maybe we can say something like       Per Saeculum VI, Visigothi inter se bella gesserunt, ut in factiones divisi sint. or something else to that effect.--Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Anywhere there is an ethnonym, it should be capitalize : visigothis => Visigothis.--Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. We've got to be able to find a Latin word for Vouille.--Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gregory of Tours and Isidore say that it was a battle at the tenth (milestone) of Poitiers, but if we call it battle of Poitiers, it can be confused with the battle of Poitiers of 732--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, let's call it Poitiers, link it, write a stub on it, and make a discretiva page?--Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although both say that it is in the tenth Milestone, Gregoy actually says "campus Vogladense" (DLH II.38), so problem solved--Xaverius 19:31, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. totas terras Galliarum praeter Septimania amisserunt.
    1. Praeter + acc.--Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. Tunc Theodoricus, rex Ostrogothorum in Hispaniam cum copiis suis intravit quod nepotem eum coronare rege voluit.
    1. Need an extra comma after rex Ostrogothorum.--Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. We might switch the construction a bit. We have already entered with our forces before, maybe now we could suas copias introduxit.(stylistic, not an error) --Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Last part is clunky, I would get rid of eum and accusativize rege(m).--Ioshus (disp) 14:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  5. Gesaleico in exilio misso, Theodoricus Hispaniam rexit.
    1. Motion so in exilium.--Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Rexit might be better as regebat.--Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  6. Dux copiarum, Thedis adverso Theodoricum rebellavit
    1. Need another comma after Thedis.--Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. I don't find adverso as an adverb. Adversus, advorsum/adversum, or contra would work well, but these are prepositions governing accusative.--Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  7. dum cenando
    1. This is a carryover from Spanish, I think. "Fue matado mientras comiendo" is fine in Spanish, but the gerund doesn't work like that in Latin. I might move cenare further back in the sentence, and change it to a present active participle. You may ask "a present active participle in a sentence in the past?!" But yes : "present" in this sense just means "at the same time as the main verb". Something like, Theidiselus cenans occissus est Ab Agila dum in Hispalis cenans. Or you can change it to a finite verb in the imperfect : Theidiselus occissus est Ab Agila dum in Hispalis cenabat.--Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      hm.... present continuous comes into action--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  8. Ergo, Isidorus Hispalensis morbus gothorum regicidio appellavit.
    1. How does regicidio fit in grammatically in this sentence?--Ioshus (disp) 14:45, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Isidore called regicide "the illness of the Goths". Regicide is the indirect object, because it is called by... no. Wait... if we put it in passive, it becomes the subject (regicide was called "the illness of the Goths" by Isidore). Would it be then an accusative, regicidium?--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, exactly. I would say Isidore regicidionem dicit esse morbum Gothorum". Ummm, and BTW...isn't it IsidorUS?? --Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      , He is Isidorus, but not in English--Xaverius 08:29, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok      [reply]
    2. gothorum => Gothorum --Ioshus (disp) 14:44, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  9. Athanagildus adverso Agilam rebellavit, et Agila Iustiniano auxilium petivit- sic incipit provinciam Spaniae.
    1. adverso again.--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Petere, rogare, postulare, and a few others take a double accusative. Pete magistrum eruditionem = "beg your teacher for education. Both the thing sought and the person you are seeking should be accusative. Ergo Iustiniano => Iustinuanum.--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
      I thought that they only took double accusative when they introduced a subordinated clause (reported speech), and in this case there was no verb.--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)      [reply]
      Nope. Me pete quaestionem. Same in English = "Ask me a question." me and question are both objects, and me is clearly accusative. And the sentence works if you take me out, too = "Ask a question which also, then, clearly has to be a direct object. Same in Spanish, too, right?--Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      dila a tu madre esto - "esto" is the object, but if I remember my syntax properly, both "la" and "a tu madre" are indirect objects, so it would be a double dative.--Xaverius 08:29, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  10. Liuva I rege est coronatus, sed Liuva solum IV annos rexit
    1. This rege is not quite right, I see what you mean and why you would go for an ablative here, but really nominative is the best. Russian would definitely use an instrumental in this construction, but not Latin. I would go with Liuva 1 coronatus est rex.--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Might consider dropping Liuva from the second part of the sentence (again stylistic, not an error).--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  11. Rebelles surgerunt dum reges se occidabant:
    1. Hmmm...what, exactly?--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The rebells emerged while the kings killed each other. The lack of centralised power allowed this centrifugal forces to emerge--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Aha...then surgerunt => surrexerunt and occidabant => occidebant.--Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  12. 'Corduba et regio Saltus Castulonensis (vel Orospeda), Astures, Cantabri, Vascones et gentes limitis cum Suevis (in regione Sabaria appellata).
    1. I can't seem to find a verb... This whole last paragraph I need explained to me. (sorry, yesterday was Cinco de Mayo, man, a few too many mojitos, and I'm not thinking clear, today...)--Ioshus (disp) 15:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Cinco de Mayo? in the states? well, at least Mexicans do not celebrate kicking the spaniards out, as other southamericans tend to do... I was just listing the regions that rebelled, which appear in yellow in the map.--Xaverius 16:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Yeah, Americans adopt any holiday. Cinco de Mayo we drink Coronas and Mojitos and eat Mexican food, St. Patty's day we drink whiskey and Guinness and drink green beer. We have people of so many cultures here, especially where I live, right near D.C., so the economy tends to emphasize ethnic quirks, where it can lead to increased sale of alcohol and food. On the one hand, it's a bit trendy and childishly fashionable. But, on the other hand I love Mexican food, and whiskey and Guinness, so an excuse is really all I need... =] --Ioshus (disp) 16:20, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. in finis sueborum cum copias intravit
    1. finis => fines --Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. sueborum => Sueborum and you ought to pick which you're going for, because you have contra Suevos pugnandi causa above. Is it a b or a v? --Ioshus (disp) 16:48, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Regnum Livigildi[fontem recensere]

  1. Recaredus Hispaniam rexerunt 560-601.
    1. That's a long time to be perfectly ruling.--Ioshus (disp) 16:10, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Touché.. ok
  2. Liuvigildus adverso Byzantinos pugnavit. Tunc, adverso Suevos.
    1. Adverso again...--Ioshus (disp) 16:10, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  3. Senex rex Suevorum nullos filios habebat, et fratri eius adverso eum insidiebant
    1. A stylistic idea... maybe a dative of possession on the filii? Seneci regi nihil fuit filiorum or Seneci regi non fuit filius ullus". Or even more stylistic use natus. ok
    2. fratri => fratres --Ioshus (disp) 16:10, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      isn't it like ager, agri?--Xaverius 16:18, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, ager and puer are pretty unique. There are a few others... vir, etc. But most things that end in -r and especially -er are 3rd declension : frater fratris fratri fratrem, etc...--Ioshus (disp) 16:24, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. adverso twice --Ioshus (disp) 16:10, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      noooooo! I swear this shall not happen again!--Xaverius 16:18, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      =] --Ioshus (disp) 16:24, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. bellum composuit.
    1. Do you mean the war was over? You'd want a form of concludere I'd imagine, more...--Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      My dictionary said for this case compono, but if it has not been understood, maybe it is better to go for conclusit.--Xaverius 17:43, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe passive? Let me think on this, too...--Ioshus (disp) 06:00, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. in finis sueborum cum copias intravit
    1. finis => fines --Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. sueborum => Sueborum and decide on v or b. Earlier you call them Suevi, here Suebi...--Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Isidore uses Suevi, I guess that I should use Suevi. ok--Xaverius 17:43, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. copias =. copiis --Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  6. et se rege Suebroum coronavit.
    1. rege(m) --Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Suebroum? =] --Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  7. filius Liuvigildus
    1. Do you mean Liuvigildi? Also, it needs a comma after it.--Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  8. convocavit, gentes gothorum in
    1. I still don't like convocare for "make a treaty".--Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the usage of Caesar & Cicero, 'to make a treaty' is (obviously) foedus facere. IacobusAmor 19:22, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I think icere is the idiom...--Ioshus (disp) 06:01, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. J. C. and Cicero seem to have thought otherwise! See L&S. Also: since the making of treaties formed a nontrivial part of the Roman success story, it wouldn't be surprising to find a large, nuanced vocabulary dealing with treaties, diplomatic missions, and such. IacobusAmor 12:31, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. gothorum => Gothorum --Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  9. victoria tulit,
    1. Victoria(m)--Ioshus (disp) 17:11, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]

Saeculum VII[fontem recensere]

  1. Postea Recaredo mortus est, regnum habuit sex reges in annis viginti? ob bella civilia et regicidia.
    1. Recaredo?--Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't get this one. Where have I written Ricaredo?--Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You haven't... I meant to say "Recaredo?" I don't understand why he isn't nominative, here...--Ioshus (disp) 22:31, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. habuit...hmmm...maybe vidit?--Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      and what about passus est?--Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. regecidia => regecidionem --Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      even though I mean it in plural? remember the morbus Gothorum, they just fancied killing each other--Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      regecidiones, then?--Ioshus (disp) 06:07, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      fine then. I think that I was trying to use is as regicidius, -i not as regicidio, -nis--Xaverius 08:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
      1. According to my eighteenth-century dictionary, a regicide (one who kills a king) is a regis interfector. IacobusAmor 12:35, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What about the act itself, Iacobe?--Ioshus (disp) 14:47, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. According to English dictionaries, the sense 'one who kills a king' is the earliest and primary one. Webster says 'the act of killing a king' is a later development, and it comes from an assumed New Latin regicidium. The New Latin -cidium = the English '-cide'.--IacobusAmor 15:49, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Then it is Regicidium,-iok
  2. erat dux strennus, et anno 620 Byzantinos superavit
    1. strennus => strenuus ? --Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  3. obsidione ultimum praesidium (Malaca vel Carthago Spartaria)
    1. Malaca and Carthago are still affected by clausit and should be accusative.--Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  4. Suinthila defuncto, reges successores (praeter Reccesvintho), paucis annis rexerunt.
    1. No second comma, unless you take out the parentheses, in which case you'll need a comma after successores.--Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Like Iacobus suggested : paucis annis means "in a few years", while paucos annos means "for a few years". This is the accusative of duration of time.--Ioshus (disp) 17:53, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      this is new... --Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. Reges huius saeculi Linguam latinam lingua publica fecerunt
    1. Linguam latinam => linguam Latinam =] --Ioshus (disp) 18:07, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. I think we have Lingua franca which explains the concept... Something like "linguam Latinam fecerunt linguam francam".--Ioshus (disp) 18:07, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  6. Tamen saeculo VII Saeculum Conciliorum vocatur
    1. saeculo => saeculum--Ioshus (disp) 18:07, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  7. exercitus => exercitibus --Ioshus (disp) 18:07, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    but it is just one...--Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    exercitu then?--Ioshus (disp) 06:13, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    as I have said somewhere else, I don't really appreciate the fourth declension--Xaverius 08:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  8. iudaeis => Iudaeis --Ioshus (disp) 18:07, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  9. prologo Historiae Gothorum descriptio sua
    1. I think prologium is the proper nominative...--Ioshus (disp) 18:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
    2. Still ablative descriptione sua.--Ioshus (disp) 18:09, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, I got this one fully messed up--Xaverius 18:33, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  10. Concilia Tolenata erant magni synodi episcoporum nobilitatisque, qui leges iussit
    1. don't you mean Concilia . . . qui leges iusserunt? IacobusAmor 19:32, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  11. magni synodi episcoporum nobilitatisque
    1. nonparallelism often makes inelegance at best and error at worst; 'of bishops and nobility' isn't parallel (episcoporum is plural & palpable, but nobilitatis is singular & conceptual). Don't you want a word for 'nobles'? IacobusAmor 19:32, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      would it be nobilium in this case?--Xaverius 19:38, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. 'Noblemen' are optimates ~ proceres ~ primores. A 'nobleman' is a vir primarius ~ vir amplissimus. IacobusAmor 21:26, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, the Visigothic nobles are called in the laws maiores, but I haven't included a proper definition of them. Would them maiores be an option?--Xaverius 21:45, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Since it was apparently the word that they used at the time, it should be fine; but ask Ioshus. IacobusAmor 00:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      For the time being I hve left maiorum--Xaverius 08:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  12. de tributis, proscriptionibus, exercitus: all these nouns should be in the same case, governed by de. Fix the one that isn't? IacobusAmor 19:32, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate the fourth declension, the ablative takes plain -u then?--Xaverius 19:38, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Right: fourth declension. That final /u:/ makes a lovely sound! IacobusAmor 21:26, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  13. et se dedderunt nominem "Flavius": (1) too many D's in dedderunt; (2) nomen is neuter (and what characteristic that neuters have in the accusative are you ignoring?). IacobusAmor 21:30, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That they remain the same, like foedus foederis?--Xaverius 21:45, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Right! IacobusAmor 00:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]

Societas oeconimiaeque (=> oeconomiaque?)[fontem recensere]

  1. sed usque 507 (postea proelium apud Vouillé) non migraverunt
    1. usque => ante --Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Vouille again.--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      you must have been looking at an older version this had alrady ben changed--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. non supra 150.000 vel 200.000 fuit
    1. Something more like non fuit maior quam 150,000 vel 200,000". Your supra here is tempting, but an adjective is probably better which refers right back to numerus in the first place.--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  3. populationis Iberiae (circiter quadraginta centena milia - 4.000.000). Visigothi fuerunt ordo regnans et pugnans populi.
    1. Populatio is a dangerous word, as it can, more often actually than in its modern sense, mean "devastation" or "destruction".--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      that's what my dictionary said, but I couldn't guess a better way of saying inhabitants... would incolae suffice?--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Which dictionary? Someday maybe Vicipaedia should split: into one restricting itself to the style of the Classal ages (through, say, the third century), in which, for example, populatio wouldn't mean 'population', and one that would admit of modern usages. IacobusAmor 13:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Hmm, we don't really need to have this number spelled out the long way, I'd pick one or the other, and go with it throughout the article.--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I was trying to show off a bit.... --Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
      1. I like spelled-out numbers. The New Yorker—the most prestigious magazine in America—spells out all numbers in English, even, say, "thirty-three billion four hundred seventy-six million nine hundred eighty-four thousand two hundred fifty-five." IacobusAmor 13:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3. This last sentence...how does it go? "The Visigoths were the ruling and fighting order of the populus?--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Inside the medieval theory of the three powers pugnatores, oratores and laboratores which were the nobles, the church and the peasants--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. Populatio nativa (Hispanoromani nominati) erat eadem populatio quae sub Roma Hispaniam incolebat
    1. populatio twice.--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll change it for incolae--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. Ordo senatorial latifundia habebat et ecclesiam guvernabat, ordo equestre erat classis mercatorium et plebs erant agri cultores in latifundia
    1. Phew, let's start with senatorial??--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      if i is the "senatorial order" do I have to say ordo senatorialis then?--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Unless this use of ordo is an idiom (and I haven't looked it up), it's not what you'd want to say. Be careful of word-for-word translating! Is something wrong with just plain senatores? IacobusAmor 13:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. ecclseiam?--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      the object of gubernabat: the senatorial order controled the bishops and many were bishops themselves--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. guBernabat. --Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    4. equestre?--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The "equestrian order", the knights or equites of ealier Roman times--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Again, translating that with ordo could be dangerous. It could of course be right (I haven't looked it up), but as a rule, beware of word-for-word translating! IacobusAmor 13:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    5. in latifundia? doesn't agri cultores already imply on a farm in the fields?--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      but that's a normal fundium, I meant a laaaarge estate, a latifundium--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  6. Numerus crescens plebium cultorum (vel plebium rusticarum) implicavit depopulationem urbium.
    1. rusticorum is a nice tight way of saying everything between crescens and implicavit.--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      fair enough then--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Did it implicare the depopulation (which should not be depopulatio per above comment on populatio) of the cities, or did it cause it? I do not know the history very well.--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      basically, we can tell that cities lost importance because they lost population, we do not exactly know what caused what.... and the idea of poor farmers devastating an abandoned city sounds exciting =]--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  7. matrimonia intra gothis et romanis admissa sunt.
    1. Gothis et Romanis... search for and capitalize all ethnonyms.--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      again, you are looking to an old version, this was already changed!--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Was it amissa or did Liuvgildus forbid it?--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      No, he allowed them--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  8. visigothorum et hispanorromani erat, res quam Liber Iudiciorum ostendit: populus Hispaniae hispanus vocatus est, non gothus nec romanus. Antea leges duplae erant, leges hispanoromanis (Lex Romana Visigothorum vel Breviarium Alarici) et leges visigothis (Codex Euricianus et Codex revisus).
    1. Visigothorum... Hispano-Romani, Hispanus, Gothus, Romanus, Hispano-Romanis, Visigothis...--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Arrghhh!--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. A later word (mista + genitive is not going to work) for "mixture" is amalgama the more classic word is malagma.--Ioshus (disp) 23:28, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      *snif, snif* I pity my dictionary, nobody seems to understand him... not even me...--Xaverius 08:35, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
      1. My dictionary says a mixing or mixture is a mixtura, also mistura. IacobusAmor 13:56, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariani, Iudaei et Catholici[fontem recensere]

  1. Anno 350, Visigothi conversi sunt in Arianismo a Ulfilis, et manserunt Arianis usque conversionem Recaredi, anno 589
    1. Arianismo => Arianismum, in + acc. for motion. (I know it doesn't seem like motion, but they were converted into Christianity.--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. a(b) Ufilis, need a b there for euphony.--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Arianis looks like it should be nominative, right? They stayed Ariani?--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, although I thought it was an ablative because they stayed as Arians, I thought it was an "ablative of how"--Xaverius 08:39, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said earlier, you will enjoy studying Russian if you ever do. It seems to fit more with your natural assumptions about languages.In Russian, even the question "what do you want to be when you grow up?" is answered in instrumental case (like ablative). But in Latin, not quite. A princeps becomes a rex, and an Arianus stays an Arianus.--Ioshus (disp) 12:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    4. usque (ad)--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. iussit Visigothos Catholicos fuissent, tamen multi meluerunt Arianismum
    1. Hmmm...i'm not sure I understand the syntax before the comma... do you mean iussit Visigothi qui Catholici fuerunt?--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      it ordered the visigoths to be Catholics. I didn't really dare to contstruct something as "it ordered them to be converted"--Xaverius 08:39, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe something like "(illud mandatum)...iussit ut Visigothi in fidem Catholicam converterent..."?--Ioshus (disp) 12:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. meluerunt??--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I know, that's just a typo they prefered (maluerunt). They prefered Arianism and did not convert--Xaverius 08:39, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Gotcha!--Ioshus (disp) 12:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. regibus convertiendi causa.
    1. For the purpose of converting for/by the kings?--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      They wanted to reconvert the kings, now in english it is clearly an accusative, but in spanish as it is "convertir a los reyes", I was confused (a is a preposition for indirect object). I guess it is reges--Xaverius 08:39, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah definitely. That's weird that Spanish introduces a preposition... Italian keeps it transitive...--Ioshus (disp) 12:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. Dum reges Ariani fuerunt, duas Ecclesiae Hispaniae fuerunt
    1. dum + imperfect.--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
      1. If this is supposed to be the existential esse (to be translated in English as 'there were', as in 'there were two Spanish churches'), the examples in Devine & Stephens's Latin Word Order show that it should come first in the clause: fuerunt duae ecclesiae Hispaniae (and there's no good reason to capitalize ecclesiae).IacobusAmor 13:18, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that as they are ecclesiae meaning the institution of the Church (not the building of the church) should be capitalised. On the existential esse,ok--Xaverius 13:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Such capitals look weird over here because, in standard American English, we lowercase such words when they're plural. The Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church, but the the Episcopal and Methodist churches. Likewise, the Mississippi River and the Missouri River, but the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Likewise President Clinton and President Bush, but presidents Clinton and Bush. IacobusAmor 14:52, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. duae --Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. fuerunt: Ariana et Catholica, similes et parallelae; utraeque cum episcopis, synodis et aedificia sacra. Aedificia propria ariana erant baptisteria.
    1. A semicolon after a colon?--Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      typo ok
      1. It may be a typo here, but there's nothing wrong with a sentence containing a colon and a semicolon; in fact, if the structure of the sentence is ABB or AAB, that may be the best punctuation for it: A:B;B or (as here) A;A:B. IacobusAmor 13:24, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. aedificia sacra => Aedificiis sacris --Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. ariana => Ariana --Ioshus (disp) 04:00, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  6. postea Vespasianus Hierosolymas cepit.
    1. postquam cepisset --Ioshus (disp) 04:05, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  7. magnos beneficios
    1. magna beneficia? What do you mean here? --Ioshus (disp) 04:05, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      As they were merchants, they achieved high (trading) benefits / profits.--Xaverius 08:39, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      OK...then we probably want multa not magna and beneficium is definitely going to be neuter, ie beneficia non beneficios.--Ioshus (disp) 12:31, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Artes archaeologiaque[fontem recensere]

  1. artem proprium creaverunt ex formis germanicis, romanis paganis, romanis christianis et hispanicis.
    1. What exactly is ars propria? (and make sure it's ars propria and not ars proprius) --Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Their very own art--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I change it for praecipuus--Xaverius 10:01, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Germanicis Romanis Romanis Christianis Hispanicis....--Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't sure if they were needed here, because they refer to the "ideas" no to the peoples--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. aurifium Visigothoum praeclarae
    1. aurifium? --Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      the arts of the goldsmiths (aurifex)--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine.. aurificum--Xaverius 10:01, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Visigothoum speaks for itself =] --Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      o tempora...ok
    3. praeclarus is a dangerous word. I tend to avoid it in encyclopaedic writing. It begs POV by nature...--Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      then what to use for "widely known" or "famous"?--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. aquilimorfa???!?--Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the archaeological term, eagle-shaped fibula--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nonnullis fibulis non vitrum sed smaragdi et granati sunt
    1. I would change the ablative thing here, as it is it doesn't quite make sense... nonnullae fibulae non ext vitro, sed ex..." --Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Damn! I was trying to make a possesive dative + esse: "some fibulae do not have glass, but emeralds and garnets"--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)      [reply]
  5. Sunt fibulae militum quarum semper duae erant.
    1. "There are pipes of soldiers of which always were two."??--Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The soldiers always wore two of these fibulae (a fibulae is not a pipe, but a safety pin)--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. summae? --Ioshus (disp) 13:53, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The main ones...--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    praecipuus...--Xaverius 10:01, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  7. praeclara est. Ecclesiae in summis urbibus
    1. praeclara again.--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. What do you mean by summis urbibus?--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      in the main cities--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. sed solum ecclesiae rusticae hodierne habemus
    1. This says "but we, the rustic churches, today only have one" --Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      ... o mores--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Hodie, or hodiernus,a,um. Not hodierne (happens again twice) --Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
      1. Ah, so it's the churches that are speaking: 'Today, we rustic churches have a floor'. (Solum = 'floor, foundation'.) I love these puzzles! IacobusAmor 15:01, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. We have an even better Spanish puzzle with Latin translations, because out of "César cruzó a sus soldados el río en Ostia (Caesar crossed with his soldiers the river in Ostia) we can horribly translate it as "César cruzó a ostias a sus soldados el río" (Caesar beating his soldiers horribly (a ostias) made them cross the river"...--Xaverius 15:09, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Praeclarae sunt Sanctus Petrus Navis (hodierne provincia Semorana) et Sanctus Ioannes Balnearum (hodierne provincia Pallentina)
    Las más famosas son las (iglesias) de San Pedro de la Nave (St. Peter of the Ship) and San Juan de Baños (St. John of the baths)--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What is a Navis Sanctus Petrus...who is genitive? Who is not? Why?
    2. Same with Sanctus Ioannes Balnearum...what's going on?
  10. res propria
    praecipuus...--Xaverius 10:01, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    1. I'm still having trouble with this...--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe I just made this up?--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ecclesiae basilicales vel cruciformes?, parvae, cum fenestrulis alabastri, quae lucem albissimam dabant.
    1. Seem to be missing a verb... And why is parvae inside commas?--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a listing, so it continues with the sentence above "the charatceristics typical of Visigothic architecture are: A, B, C...". Parvae is in commas because it is a list "the churches were basilical or in cross-plan, small and with small windows which gave a very white light--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Abs praeram navis, et iconostasis antem altare erat.
    1. I don't begin to understand this. WHat is a praeram? an altare? iconostasis?--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      oops. praeram... I think I was trying to make a sort of praesum: The abs was placed in front of the nave.--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      es:Iconostasio--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      altar, altaris is the altar were mass takes place--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. in omega?--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made this one up. It is my approximation to horshoe arch. Vitruvius did not write on this and I guess that neither did Procopius.--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. gothico => Gothico --Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  15. We have a nice Latin term for "swastika" Crux gammata. --Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  16. sepeliverunt in serieis
    1. Hmmm...ablative of the 5th declension is what?
      Arghh!! Rebus!--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  17. Istae is very tempting for a Spanish native, as surely este is derived straight from it. Latin favors hic and ille as demonstratives, though.ok
  18. circiter ecclesiarum
    1. circiter, as I think Iacobus has pointed out, governs the accusative --Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  19. Sepulturae Visigothicae anthropomorfae sunt, et ex petris fossa sunt.
    1. Sepulchra is the word I've always seen.ok
    2. Even if anthropromorphus, a, um were a Latin word, and I'm not sure it is, it certainly would not be spelled with an f instead of a ph.--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. fossa ex petris...ditches out of stone?--Ioshus (disp) 14:29, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      they carved the tombs in the rock--Xaverius 14:57, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amissio Hispaniae[fontem recensere]

  1. Ultimi reges Visigothorum continenter pugnaverunt
    1. I don't understand why there are two verbs.--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      continenter is an adverb meaning constantly--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Hahaha, so it is...sorry... Ok then, new problem...if they are constantly doing something,s hould the verb be perfect? --Ioshus (disp) 15:46, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]
  2. insidias a maioribus multas
    1. Is this your Spanish indirect object again? =] --Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      ....... would here maiorum fit better (many plots of the nobles)?--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. With no a.--Ioshus (disp) 15:54, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)okok[reply]
  3. regno est coronatus
    1. Again, Latin, not Russian...--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Aha! I knew I had seen this somewhere! Isidorus, Historia Gothorum 52 [1]
      Ok, so they have crowned him with the kingdom, I guess...I thought he was being crowned king, this whole time.--Ioshus (disp) 15:54, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. You keep using this summi. Do you mean omnes?--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nooooo... :( I mean "the main"
    Praecipuus?--Ioshus (disp) 15:54, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. sed facultatem caruit ne insidias maiorum vitevit?
    1. I click on the link, but I don't find a question about this sentence. What is your question?--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, this is just that I didn't know if vitevit was properly conjugated...--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Well no...and I'm not sure what you were going for, but vitevit not a word...--Ioshus (disp) 15:46, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      he had not the power to avoid the plots of the nobles
      1. fine, the word is viterit!--Xaverius 09:56, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. It is? How do you explain it (instead of, say, vitet)? And is something wrong with non potuit? IacobusAmor 14:05, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          vitare has to go in the subjunctive because of the "ne", but it has to be in the past, so it is vit+eri+ending. Now I'm not so sure of my construction. --Xaverius 14:14, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          1. So what happened to vitaret and vitavisset? =:o IacobusAmor 14:21, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            one is the imperfect ans the other is the pluscuamperfect, so both are also possible too...--Xaverius 14:28, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vitiza mortus est et Rodericus (dux Baetica) regno est coronatus, qui ultimus rex Visigothorum Hispaniae fuerit.
    1. motu(u)s--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. I'm sorry, I haven't really been reading for content as much as grammar...is Baetica a name? Or is it an adjective that should be Baeticus?--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Baetica, although maybe it will be better as dux Baeticae?--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes! Ok...that makes more sense.--Ioshus (disp) 15:46, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Not Russian...--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      ha! (vide supra)--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bello civile gesto, Iulianus, comes Septae auxilium Mauris petivit, ut Hispaniam invaderent
    1. If the war was already gesto. why did he still need help?
      hm....then if the war was being fought, we need a present participle... which is.... gerens?--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      and if ablative, gerente. --Ioshus (disp) 15:46, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Who is the plural subject of invaderent?--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      THe mauri that appear before--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. --Ioshus (disp) 15:46, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  8. cubuit et Iuliano iniuriam intulit, tunc Iulianus auxilium petit, ulio obtinendi causa.
    1. Hmmm...we can think of a more fun word than cubuit, right? =] =] --Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Maybe quod rather than et?--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    3. Not sure I understand ulio obtinendi causa...--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      for the sake of achieving revenge!--Xaverius 15:22, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. maio => Maio. --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  10. fluvim Guadalete => flumen Guadaletum??? --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I couldn't find the name of the river in Latin I just left it in Spanish--Xaverius 15:59, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  11. et ita => itaque --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  12. saetis? --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody instrumental огорченный, Таваριч, I put all in the accusative then, because utor is deponens--Xaverius 15:59, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  13. constabat peditibus gladiis ac securibus armatis et equitibus
    it was made of infantry armed with swords and axes and cavalry--Xaverius 15:59, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. peditibus gladiis => gladiis ad pedes? --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I do not understand securibus armatis et equitibus...--Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. fine, all could be said as constabat equites et pedites gladiis et securibus armati (?)--Xaverius 09:56, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. cornu Visigothorum (a Vitizianos ductum) defecit a Mauris
    1. Maybe commas instead of parentheses? --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. how does a cornu deficit?
      it deficit transitively? mauros?--Xaverius 15:59, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. a Alphonso III compulsa saeculo IX scripsit => a(b) Alphonso III scripta Saeculo IX dicit --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  16. spatio => spatium...accusative of duration of time. --Ioshus (disp) 15:42, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)br>he's an old friend already--Xaverius 15:59, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Intro (2)[fontem recensere]

Saeculum V (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. sed cum foedere anni 418, Visigothi Aquitaniam incolaverunt.
    1. Nothing wrong with grammar here, but you might expand the sentence to explain that it was because of the treaty that they were allowed to enter, not just starting with.--Ioshus (disp) 15:43, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      what about this: Visigothi Hispaniam intraverunt anno 416 amici Romanis, contra Suevos pugnandi causa. Tunc anno 418, ob foedus Valiae, Visigothi Aquitaniam rederunt, quod hoc foedus terras Aquitaniae eiis dedit ut Aquitaniam defenderent ?--Xaverius 19:42, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. icevit
    1. The principle parts are icio, icere, ici, ictus not icii/icivi.--Ioshus (disp) 15:43, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. infirmitatem Romanam in Hispani
    1. Still don't love the way this reads...maybe something like infirmitatem regni Romani. --Ioshus (disp) 15:43, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      infirmitatem imperii Romanorum?--Xaverius 19:42, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saeculum VI (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. Saeculum VI Visigothos in factionibus divisit.
    1. I don't mind, and even kind of like, the personification of the saeculum... but let me ask this, did the old JC say that Gaul was divided in partes tribus, or tres?--Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      and JC thus spoke Omnia Gallia est divisa in partes tres: Cisalpina, Transalpina et oblitus sum tertiae and he saw it was wise and good--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. totas terras
    1. You and Rafael are just the same =] todo = omnes, non totus --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This happens when you trust your etymology rather than... well... the dictionary, or... well... yes...--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. Gesaleico in exilium missum
    1. Ablative absolutes have both parts in the, well, you know, the ablative... =] --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      and I guess that this ablative of yours relates to the participle. I'll guess that it is misso--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. se coronavit
    1. sibi then?--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Nooooo! This is fine...I don't know why that was there...--Ioshus (disp) 20:09, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. morbus gothorum regicidium dicit esse.
    1. Two things in grammar, let's make that perfect, and accusativize the morbus --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Let's change the word order for better sense, too... Isidorus regicidium dixit esse morbum gothorum --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  6. Liuva I est coronatus rex, sed solum IV annos rexit
    1. Word order again, coronatus est or rex est coronatus. --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Thought I word order not did mind much that. At yoda look!--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    2. Tense...he was (preterito) crowned king, then he (imperfecto) ruled for 6 years...--Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      tht's curious, I would have guessed rather pluperfect and then perfect if tenses had to be changed--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  7. Rebelles surrexerunt dum reges se occidebant: Corduba et regio Saltus Castulonensis (vel Orospeda), Astures, Cantabri, Vascones et gentes limitis cum Suevis (in regione Sabaria appellata).
    1. Can you explain that whole thing to me? The rebels surrendered, while the kings were killing themselves? Why is regio in ablative? --Ioshus (disp) 16:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      fineThe rebelles emerged rather than surrendered due to the lack of central organised power--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I used the ablative because there were rebels in the border with the Suevi, in the region called Sabaria--Xaverius 19:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahh, regioni locative, then?--Ioshus (disp) 20:09, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The long forgotten case...--Xaverius 20:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Regnum Livigildi (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. Seni regi => senes --Ioshus (disp) 19:52, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    aha... but, why?--Xaverius 20:05, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am slow and can't read. I'm sorry, it was fine, before...--Ioshus (disp) 20:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    he he he...--Xaverius 20:16, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. I still don't like composuit. That literally means the war composed (object missing). It doesn't say "the war was over". --Ioshus (disp)
    Not according to my dictionary apaciguar, remediar. Nevertheless, it must be an obscure use if you cannot tell it. Is it better et pacem accepit?--Xaverius 20:05, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely like that. I've never seen componere used that way.--Ioshus (disp) 20:13, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. Hermenegildo rebellato says "hermenegildus having been rebelled" not "having rebelled". Latin has no active percet participle.--Ioshus (disp) 19:52, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now then... Interea, Hermenegildus contra patrem bellum gessit?--Xaverius 20:05, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. fide Catholica still needs to be accusative. He converted into the Catholic faith, not in the faith.--Ioshus (disp) 192, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, this has appeared before--Xaverius 20:05, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. se rege coronavit => regem --Ioshus (disp) 19:52, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Saeculum VII (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. postea => postquam --Ioshus (disp) 20:04, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. finit provincia Spaniae
    1. finita est?--Ioshus (disp) 20:04, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      yes... it sounds better--Xaverius 20:10, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. rexerunt => regebant --Ioshus (disp) 20:04, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. Why tamen?--Ioshus (disp) 20:04, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As oposed to the war-ruled kingdom there is a place for non-combat things and law-giving--Xaverius 20:10, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok.--Ioshus (disp) 20:15, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]

Societas oeconimiaeque (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. circiter anno circiter + acc --Ioshus (disp) 20:22, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. incolarunt => incolarum?--Ioshus (disp) 20:22, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. All instances of hispanoromanus need to be Hispano-Romanus --Ioshus (disp) 20:22, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Ariani, Iudaei et Catholici (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. aedificia ariana => Ariana --Ioshus (disp) 20:26, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

Artes archaeologiaque (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. I dislike the fact that Christians need to be capitalized, and pagans don't, but well, there it is...--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
    1. Well, but pagani are just the benighted countryfolk, but Christians follow the Christ, the Master, the Living God. IacobusAmor 22:00, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We can get rid of this whole praecipuum/proprium thing by taking the adjective out completely...--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ....hmmmm--Xaverius 22:05, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  3. morfa non morpha?--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    sic...--Xaverius 20:54, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  4. Sunt fibulae militum quarum semper duae erant.
    1. clunky sentence.--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I know. And it looks even worse here without its context.. let me think: Haec fibulae erant praecipuae militum, qui duas semper ferebant ?--Xaverius 20:54, 19 Maii 200
      Yeah, that looks good.--Ioshus (disp) 20:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  5. in ecclesiis delatae
    1. ecclesias --Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  6. Ecclesiae in magnas urbibus?--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha!...this was... er.. a... completely on purpose error, to avoid plagiarism. I guess that all is in the ablative--Xaverius 20:54, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  7. sepulcra => sepulchrorum--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  8. praeter vestimentis et fibulis praeter + acc.--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]

I still don't have suggestions about cruciformes or omega...--Ioshus (disp) 20:39, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. maybe cruciformes => planum in cruce? I really have no idea on horshoe arches...--Xaverius 20:54, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amissio Hispaniae (2)[fontem recensere]

  1. insidias maiorum multas
    1. Why genitive? maybe in maiores? If you really mean they were the same things his ancestors were doing, maybe a form of continuare in there?--Ioshus (disp) 20:46, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Because the king couldn't avoid the plots of the nobles (maiores are the noblemen)--Xaverius 20:56, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      If I read...it says "he was a cruel and wild king, therefore, he created many ambushes of the noblemen..."--Ioshus (disp) 20:59, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sort of... we're gtting there... He was mean and cruel, and because of this the noblemen plotted against him/ he "created plots" of the noblemen--Xaverius 21:01, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ergo in eum maiores insidias coniurabant?--Ioshus (disp) 21:14, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds trechearous and insidious...--Xaverius 21:19, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)ok[reply]
  2. ulio => ultionem?--Ioshus (disp) 20:46, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC){ok[reply]

final comments[fontem recensere]

You use tunc a whole lot... --Ioshus (disp) 20:47, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the only consecutive linking-word I know without the need of the dictionary =[ --Xaverius 20:59, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And apart from that, thanks a lot! It has been very useful (and fun at some points), and I have learned what I feel I should have known better. The question is, have you managed to learn anything about the Visigoths in Spain =]?--Xaverius 20:59, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've definitely learned about the Visigoths in Spain. More than I ever thought I might... =] Deinde is a substitute for tunc, tum, dein, in the right situations unde or inde. You can also make more liberal use of ablative absolutes. Read a passage from de bello Gallico. How does JC transition?--Ioshus (disp) 15:27, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

horseshoe[fontem recensere]

Why not call a spade a spade? Horseshoe is solea (equi).--Ioshus (disp) 15:27, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But solea it is not only a horseshoe, whereas a fornix in omega is far more descriptive and I guess more concise--Xaverius 21:22, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This amissio business, in general[fontem recensere]

I worry about this term—because it takes a point of view: if somebody "lost" Spain, somebody else must have "gained" it (or its fragments), and the narrative therefore takes the loser's POV. IacobusAmor 22:03, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is a residue of Franco's education system, because it is still called "la Amissio Hispaniae" or "la pérdida de España". Without any doubt, Spain was conquered (no matter what es:Ignacio Olagüe may say in es:La Revolución islámica en Occidente), but I did not think that using the actual convention might have been a POV--Xaverius 22:11, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about colapso/caída/ocaso of Visigothic Spain?--Xaverius 22:14, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Xaverius/Hispania_Visigothica&oldid=257353"