Reconstruction talk:Proto-Italic/nogʷedos

@CodeCat, please explain why you want this page deleted. It is not manifestly spurious, so the mere claim that the entry is “wrong” is not sufficient to justify its speedy deletion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What justification do you have for keeping it? It was created by a longtime vandal who's well known for creating nonsense. —CodeCat 16:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Onus probandi incumbit ei quae dicis, non ei qui nego; argumentum tuum fallens injuriosè ad hominem. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This Latin is a bit off. --78.129.2.122 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@78.129.2.122: How so? I welcome corrections. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. --78.129.2.122 13:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@78.129.2.122: Thanks (sincerely) for your vigilance, but I intentionally altered the formulaic onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat (“the burden of proof [lit. of that which is to be proved] presses down upon him who asserts, not him who denies”) to suit this particular situation, with the feminine quae for the masculine quī, the second-person dīcis for the third-person dīcit, and the first person negō for the third-person negat. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I see, but it strikes me as syntactically unsound. Onus probandi incumbit tibi quae dicis, non mihi qui nego, maybe? --78.129.2.122 18:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@78.129.2.122: Aah, yes; I think you might be right there. (And that is why I'm only la-2, if that.) Thanks for the correction. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the lock! Kwékwlos (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)