Disputatio:Socolata cum encytis

Encyta > encyti

My mistake: the form with -us is more probably correct, I find. So I've changed the text. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. Is the text understandable? Have you got a rough idea of what chocolate con churros is?--Xaverius 14:10, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, indeed. But what I fancy right now is pastillum loliginibus fartum!

I'll look through the texts properly later today, unless someone else forestalls me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand procimpuus (nice word though), nor the following sentence: Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With procimpuus I meant praecipuus (I shouldn't trust my memory that much).

Regarding Populus vidit encytos et socolata optima pars esse. I was trying to say that the people of Madrid saw that chocolate and churros made the perfect pair.--Xaverius 21:41, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh...

Again with the "chocolata"... Did we ever decide what form we were going to use?--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:14, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immittitur

encytus in socolata immittitur -> encytus socolatam immittitur meaning "the churros are immersed into the chocolate" ? I think immittitur takes an accusative here.--Rafaelgarcia 17:10, 12 Iunii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretium

Nescio an pretium 10 Eurorum per chilogramum vile sit.--Imtoo 20:44, 3 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sententiae hispanae

Hispanice dicitur "es un churro" aut "menudo churro" (encytus est) cum res male facta est, aut "¡cómete un churro!" (ede encytum!) cum nonnullus molestatur.--Imtoo 21:11, 3 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]