 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latin
editPossibly "scribendis" instead of scribundis? Possibly "litibus" instead of stlitibus? --Wetman 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"stlitibus" instead of "litibus" is a side form indeed handed down. "scribundis" seems to be not so common a form, but is not wrong, because in "mighty phrases" Romans tend to use the sonoric "u" instead of the shrill "i" etc. as in IIIviri auro argento flando feriundo or exercitu instead of exercitui , exercitubus instead of exercitibus and the like. Radix --2003:F5:EF0C:8456:4893:76EF:33B8:5EF4 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sources for article expansion
editI know we give the EB the benefit of the doubt since we cribbed almost all of our early articles from it, but
- B. G. Niebuhr, History of Rome (Eng. trans.), ii. 309 et seq. (Cambridge, 1832)
- Theodor Mommsen, History of Rome, bk. ii. c. 2, vol. i. pp. 361 et seq. (Eng. trans., new ed., 1894)
- Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 605 et seq., 714 (Leipzig, 1887)
- A. H. J. Greenidge, Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time, p. 40 et seq., 263 (Oxford, 1901)
- J. Muirhead, Private Law of Rome, p. 73 et seq. (London, 1899)
- Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2256 et seq. (Kübler).
are sources at least a century outdated and have nothing to do with the article if no one has verified and reused them separately apart from the EB gloss of their contents. Kindly reinsert them into the article once they have been independently reviewed and used as a source for material in the running text. — LlywelynII 07:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Split?
editThe COMMON ENGLISH use of this term is only the first sense, which is either never or almost never given as a full decemvirs-in-charge-of-writing-the-laws-with-consular-imperium. We shouldn't make it look like that's the case. Decemvir by itself always or almost always refers solely to them and the others need distinguishing... including possibly being shunted to separate articles, since they have nothing to do with the Decemvirate except having a similar name. — LlywelynII 07:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the decemvirates of 451–50 should probably have their own article. Whether they should be the primary topic for 'decemviri' is secondary. The French wiki has one 'decemvir' article for the general concept and one 'Décemvir à pouvoir consulaire' for the most famous of the decemvirates. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this article could be transformed as a simple list of decemvirates, and the part about 451-450 moved to a new article (the other way around is also possible considering the number of links that would have to be changed). T8612 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- My 1st thought was to simply have the content here pasted on a new page called (say) Decemvirate (Twelve Tables), or perhaps the default Latin name decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribundis could be used instead. Avilich (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- As for the number of links, the overwhelming amount of those seem to be tied to Template:Ancient Rome topics. Change that, and most will fall into line. Avilich (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- As for the other 3 other decemviri groups here listed, 2 have articles already, so this can be turned into a dab page. Avilich (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- In the absence of any opposition I went ahead and did the split. Avilich (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this article could be transformed as a simple list of decemvirates, and the part about 451-450 moved to a new article (the other way around is also possible considering the number of links that would have to be changed). T8612 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)