ad art

14:31 Aug 31, 2019 

Maybe you should avoid the issue and just put "ad art.", as many people do when citing these Swiss and other generally Germanic sources in English. "Ad art." is actually not that uncommon in English citations, as Abraham mentioned in the previous question. It would be more satisfactory to put something that clarifies what it means, but I must confess I'm really not sure what it does mean. I have some difficulty with ad being used to mean "at" (i.e., expressing location) in Latin, at least in classical Latin, though I suppose this could be the kind of doggy neo-Latin that is contaminated by vernacular usage, so ad might be used, for example, as equivalent to "à" in French. (Michael's dictionary.com reference doesn't support ad meaning "at", and anyway I would trust dictionary.com over Lewis & Short on Latin usage.) Nevertheless, I must admit that where "ad art." is used in contexts where you can more or less guess its meaning, that meaning seems to be closer to "about" or "added to", rather than "at". The context cited in the question does not establish clearly that it must mean "at". So I'm not sure that Phil was wrong, after all.