User talk:P Aculeius/Archive 1

IPA

I've altered the pronunciation of Decimus to /dɛ.sɪ.mʊs/ or /ˈdɛ.kɪ.mʊs/ ; do I take you're in Yorkshire or somewhere else that doesn't distinguish /ʌ/ and /ʊ/ much (or am I just wrong about proper pronunciation)? Thanks for all the work you're doing on praenomina, it is much appreciated! Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm doing this right; I'm pretty new to editing and talk pages are pretty confusing to me. I'm in the U.S., as it happens. But based on my understanding of the IPA conventions, /ʌ/ seems to be the sound of the letter "u" in the nominative ending "-us". It should sound like the "u" in "bus", not like "oo" in "book", which is what /ʊ/ seems to be for. The praenomen Publius, by contrast, should have both sounds, /ʊ/ for the first "u" and /ʌ/ for the second. I'm sure you could pronounce Latin words with the ending /ʊs/, but that would sound like a strange accent to me. In either case, I'm sure that /ʊ/ (with a strikethrough) must be the wrong symbol, since that seems to be a sound midway between /ʊ/ and /juː/. I would prefer to revert to /ʌs/, but I'll wait until I hear back from you first. Thanks for your interest in my work—I've been wanting to do this for years! P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be doing things right so far! OK, so we're not talking at cross purposes, and it sounds like a difference in how Latin is taught. /ʊ/ is a reduced vowel, somewhere between /ʊ/ and schwa(/ə/), like the final vowel in "beautiful", if pronouncing the name in English (à la Decimus Burton) I'd definitely use (a soft c and) either a schwa or that sound; if reading Latin I'd use (a hard c and) an /ʊ/ as in "puss". I wasn't taught to use an /ʌ/ (bus) phoneme anywhere in Latin, though I can think of accents (Southern US? Welsh?) where it approaches /ɜ/ or . My accent is basically RP, if that helps you with what I'm on about. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking in my copy of Webster's Biographical Dictionary (1958 edition). The appendix "Pronouncing List of Prenames" gives the pronunciation as /dĕc'i•mŭs/. The same terminal appears under Appius, Aulus, Faustus, Gaius and Gnaeus. Sadly, my computer doesn't seem to have the pronunciation symbols I'm used to, so I'll approximate them here: the phonetic guide at the bottom of the page gives the following pronunciations: fōōd (with a single macron over both o's), fŏŏt (single breve over both o's), cūbe, ṻnite (actually one dot, not diaeresis), ûrn, ŭp, circŭs, ü = u in Fr. menu. I would not have differentiated between the u's in up and circus. However, for Eugenius and Eusebius the dictionary suggests /ŏŏs/ (double breve), which I believe is the sound represented by /ʊ/. It seems to me that Merriam-Webster prefers /ŭs/ for Latin names and /ŏŏs/ (double breve) for Greek. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary uses /ŏŏ/ (double breve) for the final "u" in beautiful, which is /ʊ/ according to IPA. However, my Cassell's Latin Dictionary uses /ŏŏ/ for ŭ. I think that this represents a difference of opinion which cannot be definitively resolved, unless we suppose that ŭ in bus represents Latin as pronounced in English, and /ŏŏ/ in book is Latin with a continental accent. Perhaps this is a bit fanciful! I suggest that we use /ʌ/ since that represents the simple /ŭ/, which is the more general sound in English, and could include the sound of /ʊ/. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd distinguish strongly between "up" and "circus", the latter of which has a vowel nowhere near /ʌ/. To give a minimal pair, would you pronounce "cuss cuss" and "couscous" as identical? Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The OED (which happily uses IPA) gives /ˈkwɪntəs/ for quintus (musical sense), /ˈkʊskʊs/ for couscous, and /kʌs/ for "cuss"; I concur (and use the couscous vowel when reading Latin). Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the "ou" in couscous pronounced as either /ʊ/ or /uː/ (always the same sound twice), but never as /ʌ/. In the case of "cuss" (not really a legitimate word in my opinion, at least if we're talking about the slang pronunciation of "curse" that all my friends in school used) I think that OED recommends /kʌs/ rather than /kəs/ mainly because in a single-syllable word, the vowel is stressed, unlike in -us endings. However, I tend to pronounce schwa vowels more distinctly than most people (being a stickler for spelling and pronunciation). I would never pronounce the "u" in circus like the "ou" in couscous, nor have I ever heard any native English speaker, British or American, do so. In my opinion that sounds like how one would say it in a distinctly German accent. P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that circus and couscous had the same last syllable, but that the couscous phoneme was the one I'd use in Latin, and the circus one in English. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this conflict can be definitively resolved using empirical evidence, since reliable sources suggest different pronunciations. The vowel is unstressed and could arguably be represented by /ə/, as the Oxford English Dictionary does with Quintus. You and I both prefer to pronounce it more distinctly, but with slightly different sounds. I can certainly see pronouncing the final "u" in Aulus as /ʊ/ (but not as /ʊ/), and in fact wavered back and forth between /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ while writing that article. However, that has more to do with the sounds that precede that vowel. In Decimus /ʊ/ does not seem at all natural to me, and /ʊ/ is certainly wrong. Although providing alternative pronunciations is sometimes unavoidable, I do not think it desirable to do so with every Latin word or name ending in -us, and would prefer to keep the entries in the category of praenomina reasonably consistent. I decided to add pronunciation guidelines to some names because parts of them were not immediately obvious, but it never occurred to me that there would be any dispute about the second declension masculine ending, -us. Given the uncertainty and the fact that neither of us is clearly right or wrong, as the names are susceptible of various different pronunciations, I would like to continue using /ʌ/ for -us with the understanding that individuals are free to accept or reject that recommendation. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After further reflection, I think I may have misunderstood the nature of the difference between /ʊ/ and /ʊ/. The example of "curriculum" with the bracketed form /jʊ/ confused me. Based on this, I agree that /ʊ/ is closer to the sound I would use for -us than is /ʊ/. But I still prefer the sound indicated for /ʌ/ in most Latin words and names, and would like to keep the entries consistent. I think it is useful to bear in mind that pronunciation is ultimately subjective, and that readers must make up their own minds after looking at our suggestions. P Aculeius (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Part II

Hi. Since I've modified a few of your transcriptions, I thought it would be polite to explain myself. ˈŋnaɪ.əs, for example, is not a possible English pronunciation, as we can't have ŋ at the beginning of a syllable. We do have a {{IPA-la}} template for Latin pronunciations, where that would be appropriate. I wonder about the /ʊ/ in Publius and Tullus. It seems to me that a fully anglicized pronunciation, like you're likely to find in a production of one of Shakespeare's plays and which might be more relevant to our readers, would have /ʌ/ instead, with /ʊ/ being more appropriate for a Latin than English pronunciation. I imagine it might also be a matter of your school's tradition for pronouncing Latin, which could result in edit wars with editors taught a different tradition. IMO this is a good argument for using the most anglicized literary pronunciation with an IPA-for-English template like the one you've been using, and for restricting /ʊ/ in Publius to the IPA-for-Latin template, which has several parameters to distinguish different pronunciation standards. Unless I'm missing something here? kwami (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept edits that are constructive and helpful, although in this case I'm confused by the removal of syllabification and emphasis markers. I can certainly see why a schwa /ə/ might be an acceptable alternative to a distinctly-pronounced vowel /ʌ/, but my recommendation was to pronounce them distinctly. If you're determined to use schwas... schwae? schwates? I'll accept your recommendation since you obviously understand IPA better than I do. I'm happier with that than the /ʊ/ or /ʊ/ suggested for one of these articles.

I would like some help understanding the difference between IPA-for-English and IPA-for-Latin as they relate to English-language articles about Latin names. It seems to me that there are numerous pronunciations for Latin, some more pedantically classical than others (although experience suggests that there was actually more variation in the pronunciation of Latin than the publishers of modern Latin grammars would like us to believe). On the other end of the spectrum we have pedantically-English pronunciation, which is very much out-of-fashion, at the moment (and I don't really complain about that). So what is the historical scholar to do with a wide variety of pronunciations? I've recommended one or two pronunciation for each name, that ought to be acceptable to purists on both sides, and perhaps people in the middle.

These aren't meant to be pronunciations for English speakers or for people trying to speak as the Romans themselves would. They're supposed to be acceptable for both. So what is the proper template? Does it depend on the pronunciations being one or the other? I do feel rather strongly about the 'u' in "Tullus" and "Publius" being /ʊ/, neither /ʌ/ nor /uː/. A few people seem to prefer each of those, but I don't see much advantage in choosing between the extreme points of view, or trying to include each possible alternative pronunciation. If you think these are going to be as controversial as all that, then perhaps these articles would be better off without suggested pronunciations.

As for the /ŋn/ issue, I'm trying to convey that the 'g' isn't totally silent. /ŋ/ seems to be the sound of 'g' before 'n', followed by /n/. Perhaps /gn/ would be more acceptable? P Aculeius (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that if we're going to present s.t. as an English pronunciation, then it really should be a possible English pronunciation. AFAIK, it's not possible to start an English word with /gn/ either, and the 'g' really is silent, just as the 'p' is silent in pneumo- and ptero-. [yes, I'm aware those are Greek, but they've been passed through Latin] If we're going to give pronunciations starting with things like /gn/ or /pt/, or which have full vowels in every syllable which an English speaker would automatically reduce to schwas, then IMO we've moved outside the realm of English. This is a consideration for place names too, when people use approximations which aren't really the original, but no longer fit within English either. So far, I haven't seen much discussion of this; the most common approach has been to have both the fully English and the native pronunciations. I'd be much more comfortable restricting /ŋn/ to {{IPA-la}} and using the kinds of transcriptions we might find in the OED for {{IPA-en}} or {{pron-en}}.

We really need to consider out audience, much of which knows no Latin, or wouldn't know what to do with a transcription like /gn-/.

Of course, there are all kinds of approaches to Latin pronunciation, as you say. If we follow the example of the OED, then I don't think it should be a problem. Also, anybody who feels strongly about this will hopefully be satisfied by the inclusion of the Latin IPA.

We've got a similar problem with astronomical names. Take Io, and pardon me for conflating Latin and Greek--the issues are similar. There are astronomers who pronounce it EYE-oh, and others who say EE-oh; since EYE-oh is the literary pronunciation, and there could be several schools for the EE-oh pronunciation (even if not in this particular word, but there can be for others), what I've done, and it seems to be accepted, is to say "pronounced EYE-oh or as in Greek", figuring that anyone who objects that "EYE-oh" isn't authentic will be able to use the original Greek anyway. I expect a similar approach might work here. kwami (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I've confused the issue. I've been browsing through the Wikipedia MOS as well as the pages about the IPA, and my conclusion is that there's no significant difference between the pronunciation of these symbols in Latin or English, and no reason to treat pronunciations for these names as distinctly Latin or distinctly English. The same pronunciations ought to be applicable to both; in some cases more than one pronunciation is acceptable, as in Io or Decimus. My approach is to give both, without suggesting that one is necessarily better than the other.

I still don't really understand whether these should use the IPA-en or IPA-la template, if the pronunciation is supposed to represent both languages. The MOS really doesn't seem to answer that question, at least not anywhere I can find.

As for the intial 'gn' in Gnaeus, I think it's perfectly pronounceable in both Latin and English; just very rarely needed in either language. Browsing through my OED I note that the second of two pronunciations given for "gneiss" (and its derivatives) begin with /gn/. Most other English words beginning with 'gn' originally pronounced the 'g', as words beginning with 'kn' pronounced the 'k'. We still have words like "knish" and "Knossos". The epigraphic evidence supports that the 'g' was pronounced in Latin; it was persistently retained and written even after the original spellings (Cnaios, Cnaeus) were outmoded by the invention of the letter 'g'; if it made no sound it wouldn't have been necessary to alter the orthography. It's also found in Etruscan as Cneies and other spellings.

On the other hand it wasn't very strongly pronounced, because derivatives such as "Naipor" and "Naevius" don't have it. So it must have been a sort of in-between sound, sometimes more strongly pronounced than others. Since the OED recognizes /gn/ as a valid initial sound in English, and clearly it could occur in Latin (and Greek), I think the best solution would be to use that as one of two acceptable pronunciations for Gnaeus (the other being simply /n/). Would that be acceptable to you? P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aargh! I'm on a borrowed computer, and just installed Firefox so my messages wouldn't get erased before I hid 'save'. That's the second time that's happened this evening.

Now, if I can just remember what I'd said ...

My e-OED is on my own computer, and my print version is in storage, so this week I can't speak directly to what they do. But other dictionaries I have don't have a /g/ in gneiss. Also, the OED frequently puts a double pipe before a transcription to show it isn't assimilated English. We haven't addressed how to do this on WP.

There are quite a few guides to the literary pronunciation of Latin. That isn't too controversial. In these, gn- is pronounced /n/, short u is pronounced /ʌ/, etc. This is what we're likely to find in the OED. Classical Latin is likewise pretty straightforward. (I suspect that you're right about the diversity of Latin, but that's not really an issue at this stage of things.) The problem comes in with Anglic Latin (or whatever we call it), that half-English, half-Latin chimera. Okay, "Io" isn't the best example, as it's pretty much the same in any Latin-pronouncing tradition. But get a name with a soft c in it, and there's no end to the argument.

IPA-en is intended to be used for English, and IPA-la for Latin. Yes, /u/ is pretty much the same thing in either, but /r/ is not. Although you've said that your transcriptions are intended to cover both, they really don't. They only cover both in the context of English; Italians wouldn't consider them real Latin, not unless you transcribe -us as /ʊs/, which English speakers would find foreign. Also, since Latin is no longer natively spoken, there is no native pronunciation, and the IPA-la template allows for various traditions. Therefore IMO Anglic Latin should use the IPA-la template. However, I had nothing to do with setting it up, so you might want to ask the opinions of the people who did.

But like I've said, I've sidestepped this issue so far. If we do have fully anglicized and Anglo-Latin pronunciations of the same word, I think that for clarity we should label which is which. There could be any number of ways to do that; in the astronomy articles, I've merely added the Latin orthography (with vowel length) and left it at that, but but I'm sure we could think of s.t. more helpful, such as the OED does with their (nais, ||gnais), assuming that's what they did in that case. kwami (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about "double-piping" for non-assimilated words, so I just checked what the OED says, and here it is: "Gneiss (nəis, gnəis). Geol. Also 8 kneiss" It probably doesn't make any difference, but it's a compact edition in two volumes (plus supplement), with four pages in tiny type on each page. I was looking through my Bantam's Latin & English dictionary, and it suggested that the 'g' in 'gn' needed to be pronounced in the "Classical" method, although not always in the "Ecclesiastical" method. I actually prefer that dictionary to my Cassell's, which is more rigid and provides fewer examples, although usually when I cite a definition I use Cassell's on the theory that people will recognize it as more authoritative. But I'm only suggesting that we present /gn/ as one of two alternatives, the other one being /n/.

I'd like to avoid openly suggesting that the pronunciations should be considered "English" or "Latin". Wikipedia suggests a broad transcription is preferable, and I agree with that. The IPA-all template page suggests using IPA-en for words that have been assimilated and IPA-la for Latin words that haven't been assimilated. I don't really know whether to call Latin praenomina assimilated or not. Most if not all of them will be familiar to anyone who's read Roman history in English. But the page also suggests that the principal difference between IPA-all and IPA-en is how many symbols are included when people click on the link. Since IPA-en contains all the individual sounds required, and provides examples of these sounds in English, and the reader will be familiar with these sounds, maybe IPA-en is the best choice to use. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest then that we place the fully assimilated pronunciation first, as it will be the easier and more familiar pronunciation for most people, and the more Latinate pronunciation second? The IPA already scares off enough people without us introducing things like /gn-/ at the outset. If they don't get it, hopefully they'll at least get the first pronunciation, so it won't bother them much. kwami (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, if you can live with that, I think we've reached an acceptable solution. I appreciate your willingness to work with me to improve these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of the literary English pronunciation of Latin, which they call the "English method". For example, u is long in all open syllables but the last, as in Jupiter or pubic, except before bl, as in public (or Publicus). Tullus would also have a short u as in pub in this system, as it's in a closed syllable. There are many such books in broad agreement, some of which transcribe Roman names explicitly. It's my opinion that we should follow this tradition for the first pronunciation, and the "Classical method" or your compromise for the second. Just verifying we're on the same page. kwami (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about 'u' in Publius or Tullus, but 'gn' in Gnaeus. I'm conflicted with respect to the vowel because, on the one hand, I strongly favor /ʊ/ for the initial 'u' in both instances, and would like to avoid inserting multiple pronunciations. One is bad enough; they are confusing-looking, but they seemed necessary in these cases precisely because people unfamiliar with the names might have guessed /ʌ/ or /uː/. On the other hand, if there are two significantly-divergent pronunciations, as with Decimus (or three, as with Lucia), then I've somewhat reluctantly included additional pronunciations. That seemed necessary with Gnaeus because of the unusual spelling, and apparently differing pronunciations during the classical period.

As for 'u' in Publius and Tullus, I think there's a second factor to be considered. It's true that in the past English-speaking Latin students might have learned to pronounce both of these names with /ʌ/ instead of /ʊ/. On the other hand, I don't think that these pronunciations are taught today (the pendulum having swung all the way in the other direction), or have been for quite a long time (probably over a hundred years). So not many people will be familiar with those pronunciations, and they might be dispensed with.

Except that, as you say, it's a "literary" pronunciation. Not that you can tell from most literature how to pronounce somebody's name, of course. But many people are familiar with "Tully" (from Tullius, the nomen derived from the praenomen Tullus), once used synonymously with "Cicero". It's been fully assimilated into English, unlike Publius, which is mostly familiar to historians and Latin students. So I think there's a stronger case for /ʌ/ as an alternative pronunciation for Tullus than in Publius. Would you be willing to go along with this distinction? P Aculeius (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you obviously know more about this than I do. I suppose it wouldn't be a problem to take such issues into account, though I wonder how we'd be able to defend them. But we also have people who pronounce Latin based on literary English principles, and would end up with a short u in Publius for the same reason they do in public. That is, even if a particular name isn't assimilated into English, the conventions for how to pronounce it are. Do we make exceptions for pronunciation rules based on how familiar a name is? (There is, of course, a similar problem with botanical names etc.) kwami (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrrgh, we've got another issue now. These pronunciations were not meant to represent English vs. Contintental pronunciations, or even Classical vs. Modern. Your most recent changes to Gaius and Gnaeus require that both of them have a third pronunciation added to the first two alternatives, which is precisely what I was trying to avoid. And they're required because you're adding historical pronunciations that are neither Classical Latin nor modern pronunciations. And these historical pronunciations are being placed first in preference to the others, which is the opposite of the original intention.

Archaic pronunciations that reflect neither current scholarship about Classical Latin pronunciation nor current usage in Latin studies or everyday speech should not be preferred to those that do. It's debatable whether they need to be included at all. I would like to ask you to consider reverting the edits to Paullus and Aulus, and restoring the pronunciation you deleted from Gnaeus. The historical pronunciations you have added to Gaius and Gnaeus should come last, because they are only relevant in a literary context. P Aculeius (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that they're archaic. For Gaius, for example, it's the primary pronunciation. Gaius is a well enough known name to make it to the bio section of my MW dict, and /gei@s/ gets preference, with /gai@s/ secondary, and no mention of /ga:i:@s/. There is no Paullus, which is a bit obscure, but there is a Paulus (the jurist), and that is /po:l@s/, with /paul@s/ not even given as an alt. kwami (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to Merriam-Webster (and believe me, I do respect them, and if these pronunciations are suggested by them then I am willing to include them in the articles, even though pronunciation sections clutter up articles and confuse readers), these pronunciations do not reflect either current thinking about how these names would have been pronounced in Classical Latin nor how English-speaking students of Latin are taught to pronounce them today. These names are not used in everyday English; Gaius is at best rare (like "Tully"), and as the absence of Paullus shows that it is not used to any appreciable extent in Modern English and never has been.

These pronunciations reflect what is (or used to be) called Ecclesiastical Latin, which until the 19th Century was the primary method of pronunciation taught to English-speaking students. But the modern method, which is intended to represent Classical Latin (how accurately it does so may be open do debate) also dates to the late 19th Century, and has been used almost exclusively for the last hundred years. The pronunciations /ˈɡeɪ.əs/ and /ˈniː.əs/ are, in effect, historical relics that are rarely going to be encountered by modern English speakers. That may justify including them in the article, but they should clearly be labeled as something other than current or Classical, since they are neither.

You may be amused by a pop culture reference to the shift in Latin pronunciation in the 1939 film version of Goodbye, Mr. Chips, where the aging schoolmaster around the time of the First World War rails against the idea that he should be teaching his students to say "Gaius Yoolius Kaiser" instead of "Cayus Julius Seizer". I'm not taking sides in that debate, but if we go to the extreme of including every pronouncing variation due to Ecclesiastical Latin, then we'll need to add at least two or three more pronunciations of "Gaius" and perhaps "Gnaeus" as well. It's too much, it's not necessary, and if people are really interested in alternative Latin pronunciation then there are other topics that cover (or eventually will cover) that subject. I might add, perhaps not very probatively, that the most recent literary character (stretching the word "literary" to include television drama) I can think of named "Gaius" was pronounced /ˈɡaɪ.əs/, not /ˈɡeɪ.əs/. This wasn't even a historical drama, but a science-fiction program, which ran for several years. I don't think I've ever met anybody with the name, and I can't think of any modern historical figures with it.

As for "Aulus" and "Paullus", I should explain that the pronunciations /ˈɔːləs/ and /ˈpaʊləs/ were not included in the article because they represented alternative English pronunciations, which you seem to have assumed. They reflected variation in Classical times, which can be seen in both Latin variations and Greek transcriptions of these names. One occasionally finds "Aulus" written as "Olus", and while the masculine "Paullus" is not found very often as a praenomen, the feminine "Paulla" is quite common, although it is frequently written "Polla", and in Greek is found with three different pronunciations indicated by the spelling; "Παυλλα", "Πολλα", and "Πωλα".

Ονε αλσο νοτεσ τηατ... er, one also notes that Latin "aula," a pot, becomes modern Italian "olla". There is, or appears to be, a shift in vowels, where /aʊ/ seems to have competed against /ɔː/ (and occasionally /oʊ/) for quite some time. /aʊ/ seems to represent the "Classical" method, but /ɔː/ eventually prevailed as Latin developed into Italian, with /aʊ/ surviving in some words or names, as in "Paolo" and "Claudio", even though as I'm sure you've noticed, /ɔː/ must have been the authentic sound in "Claudius" even in Classical times.

Anyway, please, consider placing these "Ecclesiastical" Latin pronunciations last in these four articles, since they do not reflect either how Latin was pronounced (or at least taught) either in Classical times or in modern times. If you prefer I will take care of it, preserving the pronunciations but placing them in their proper context. But since I'm trying to avoid an "edit war" here I'm willing to wait for your response and defer to you if you if we can reach some sensible agreement. P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We can always place the IPA in a footnote. That's what we do with some other names that get complex, such as Van Gogh.

MW has a very small bio section. Absence from there is not evidence that the names are rare in English, only that they're not among the more common. And they only list individuals, not generic names; AFAIK Paulus is an alt. spelling of Paullus, isn't it?

Again, pronunciations of Latin names for English students belongs in the IPA-la template; IPA-en is for English names, including assimilated foreign names. Gaius tends to be /gei@s/ when speaking in English, say in a Shakespearean play, whereas /gai@s/ tends to be used when one is attempting to speak Latin, correct? That is, I'm not trying to claim that /gei@s/ is Latin at all, except in origin, and it is the English pronunciation that normally goes first in an article. [Okay, I see you have examples of /gai@s/ as English, which reflects what MW has.] Of course, the IPA-la template has an 'Ecclesiastical' parameter, but the article it links to is inadequate to explain the use of the IPA for these English pronunciations.

This is a greater issue than just these names, so perhaps we should be working in conjunction with the people who put that template together? I need to leave in a few minutes, but can get to that when I come back.

As I said, English normally comes first. There may be reason to make an exception for these articles, but I do think that we should indicate which is which. I don't want readers frustrated if they can't pronounce a transcription that they assume is English because it isn't really English. The pronunciation of Gnaeus with an engma is perfectly acceptable as Latin, just not as English, and not using the IPA-en template. I defer to your expertise in matters Latin; my concern is that this not become a walled garden where Latin names are treated differently than names from other languages. Of course, Latin is a bit of an oddball, since the pronunciations are so chimeric. I do think this needs wider discussion.

kwami (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I started one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin.

gens

Thanks for your much-needed work on gens. I hope you continue to develop the article with a section on politics and the gens based on scholarship that goes beyond the dictionaries and reference works, some of which are dated, as I believe they have downplayed this aspect. See, for instance, The Roman clan: the gens from ancient ideology to modern anthropology by Christopher John Smith, limited preview online.

You might also want to expand your comment on Roman adoption and the gens by a sentence or two, with an example — maybe with a complicating example such as Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus or Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, which would deal with the idea of adopting an adult, in part for the passing on of the gens name. Your discussion of patrician and plebeian, and the possibility that a gens might have both plebeian and patrician branches, might benefit from some notice of plebeian nobles, which can sound like an oxymoron to us.

One tiny question: I am utterly hopelessly ignorant of IPA symbology, so forgive me if you've already represented this accurately. Classical pronunciaton of terminal -ns is never -nz (as comes naturally to English speakers). It remains -ns, sounding more like -nts (hence the inflected stem -nt-).

Thanks again. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on articles of this sort, as research in this area has been a hobby of mine since college. I may treat topics such as politics or adoption at a later point, although my principle concern is revising and standardizing articles on individual gentes and their members. I realize that older sources may not have covered all areas thoroughly, but I have to limit the scope of my work for two reasons; the practical one is that I don't have access to many newer works (and have limited access to some older ones).

I've also noted a tendency for scholars in this area to contradict one another without necessarily proving that they're right. This is nothing new, but considering the depth and amount of classical scholarship in the 19th Century compared with today, I can't assume that a recent source is more accurate merely because it's newer or presents novel theories. I need to compare different views and use some common sense before deciding what makes sense and what doesn't, and in what context to present it. And that may require more time and resources than I have, so it may be left to others to discuss recent theories and developments (I hope, placing them in context, instead of merely contradicting or replacing older ideas).

As for pronunciation, this is obviously a touchy subject, as Latin, like English, never had a single, unvarying pronunciation, even in Classical times, and has been taught in various ways up to the present. I'm trying to follow the current model of Latin pronunciation in English, but I also acknowledge older pronunciations that might still be in use. In this instance, I'm not convinced that gents is a realistic pronunciation, because it does not seem like a natural sound for these letters to make.

Although it is currently taught that Latin "s" should always be pronounced as "s" instead of "z", there is evidence that it could be pronounced as "z" in Latin. For instance, the gentes Furia and Veturia were originally Fusia and Vetusia. Here the "s" has been worn down until it has been replaced with "r", and the best explanation is that it was originally pronounced "z" as we would pronounce them in English. The same process has resulted in the shift from "Numesius" to "Numerius" and "Perusia" to "Perugia", and there are many other examples.

One might also mention the shift from "c" to "s" in "Numicia/Numisia", or how "Paulla" is rarely transliterated into Greek as Παυλλα, but usually Πωλλα and occasionally Πολλα. A similar phenomenon with the name Claudius demonstrates that, while modern Latin studies always pronounce "au" to rhyme with "cloud", it could also rhyme with "plod" or "toad".

In the end, I'm just recommending pronunciations that can be considered Latin/English. I could include more variations to account for past or current pronunciations, but I think that would clutter up the articles too much. In this instance, I wavered between recommending "z" or "s" and I may still change it to "s", but I need some time to think about it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the pronunciation point seriously, but you don't need to think about it: that would be original research. The standard Latin grammars such as Allen & Grenough and Hale & Buck say that Latin "s" is never pronounced z. The diphthong au/o, as in Claudius/Clodius, seems to have to do with the Sabine dialect. Nor does intervocalic c/s have anything to do with terminal s; these are all separate linguistic phenomena.

The political role of the gens, or family political dynamism, is hardly a "novel" topic. The importance of marriage as political alliance among the elite is one aspect. The only debate in the scholarship is one of emphasis: it cannot be assumed that all members of a gens, even within a stirps, walked in political lockstep. I too believe in preserving older scholarship, particularly of the great 19th century philologists, but this is always summarized and reviewed by 20th and 21st century scholars, which can be useful particularly for foreign-language work if, like me, you are not an expert reader of all the useful languages. The prosopographical approach has dominated for a hundred years in classical studies, as evidenced by Ronald Syme, T.P. Wiseman, and T.R.S. Broughton; these are hardly fashionable dabblers in theory.

I apologize if you felt I was being harsh on your work: I thought I made it clear that your efforts were greatly welcome and appreciated. I was quite glad that someone was working on this article, and offering suggestions based on what I have needed from it when I've linked to it in the past. I do this when someone is taking an active and ongoing interest in an article, to give that person space to develop it in their own way, rather than jumping in and rewriting. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe, I realize that you share my interest and are only trying to make the best possible article. I've accepted most of your revisions, and decided to change the IPA pronunciation in the first instance from /z/ to /s/, bearing in mind that readers are still entitled to pronounce /s/ as they see fit. I've left the second one as is, because it was intended to reflect a more Anglicized pronunciation of Latin. I have further revised and clarified some sections of the article following your revisions, in part because certain sections (such as those dealing with praenomina) needed to be kept together, while others needed to be shifted around to be more coherent with a much larger first section. Otherwise I have revised some of the language to make it clearer.

As for the question of the political role of the gens, on further reflection I think it may be that I worded the paragraph in such a way that it emphasized the wrong point. Since this paragraph is based very closely on the article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (second edition), I simply revised it to shift the emphasis where I felt that it was intended, and with any luck made it less dubious a statement than it was originally. Of course if someone else is able to elaborate on the political significance of the gens, they are welcome to do so, but that is beyond my knowledge or ability to investigate at this point. P Aculeius (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided a citation for the traditional date of the end of the Trojan War. It comes from Eratosthenes, according to Michael Wood in The Search for the Trojan War. I checked the other books I had handy and they didn't mention it, but the DGRBM did allow me to identify which of Eratosthenes' works Wood was citing from. P Aculeius (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Titus Aebutius Helva has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Jovianeye (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit was a simple redirect from an old page to a new page with a slightly different title. The edit summary clearly stated that the content of Titus Aebutius Helva had been merged into Titus Aebutius Elva. This appears to be a constructive edit. P Aculeius (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done a undone the rollback that I performed. My sincere apologies! Jovianeye (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worried I was doing something wrong! P Aculeius (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

gens renaming

I saw that you moved Cornelius (gens) to Cornelia (gens). I'm not sure you're right here; the form of the nomen one encounters most often is Cornelius. The parenthetical gens distinguishes the nomen Cornelius from Cornelius as a given name in English and other modern languages. If you inflect it to agree with gens, the parentheses should be removed, should they not?

Since this could affect a number of articles and a number of links, could I suggest that before changing others you go to the G&R Project and gather some opinions? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just done that (I think). I don't think there should be any question about whether the name of a gens should be masculine or feminine, but I'm sure it won't hurt to discuss that or the other issues. Hope the reasons I gave will agree with everybody. P Aculeius (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good with a major undertaking that affects so many articles to have some interested parties on board. Or watching your back. Or whatever metaphor of your choosing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

capitalization of headings

Another note from me, which must be getting tiresome. If I'm not utterly misguided and mistaken, Wikipedia uses what we used to call in the newspaper business "downstyle": the capitalization of headings conforms to general rules of proper vs. common nouns, not to capitalization for titles in English (which itself may be heading toward downstyle, if academic journals and bibliographic entries on Google Books are an indication). Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, I realize that there are conventions I don't know or understand. I'm trying to follow them, insofar as I can't judge which are right or wrong... although I have to admit, the premise that "anyone" can edit Wikipedia is a bit strained, considering just how much I've had to puzzle over various help topics and how many mistakes I've made and only discovered later, despite being trained and practiced in writing and linguistic conventions. I'm used to thinking that people should choose their own style of writing, which is not entirely consistent with the conventions required of a large-scale reference project. But I am learning, and I appreciate your help, so long as you're patient enough to give it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fiesole

Would you add your DGRBM reference to the Manlius ("Mallius") footnote. Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. I can provide the text of the two articles concerned if you need them; they're not very long. P Aculeius (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's further material in them that needs to be worked into the Wikipedia article... maybe when you get a chance... Otherwise, no, but thank you. Have a fruitful and delightful 2010.--Wetman (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi, P. Aculeius, and a happy new year to you. Was looking at a page on my watchlist (Gaius Ateius Capito (tribune)) and noted your "See also" to the gens. I know you're achieving vast and complicated things here, and hope you'll consider this suggestion. To my mind, a "See also" at the end of an article directs readers to topics that will amplify the content of what's just been read; your "See also" to the gens page (I'm assuming you'll be adding these regularly) strikes me as more useful at the top.

Here's why. You are by now well aware that prosopographical pages began as a disambiguation dodge. That is, the pages began as a way to help users find the Ateius or Calvisius or Baebius they might be looking for, offering information insufficient for an independent article for minor figures, and pointing to those who do have articles. So a note at the top telling readers that they may find the Ateius or whoever they need not on this page, but on the gens page or other relevant page, seems more helpful to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Cynwolfe, happy New Year to you too! I know exactly what you mean, and when I began this particular project that's exactly what I was doing. However, I quickly realized that if I continued to do that, I'd have to have something like that at the beginning of practically every article about someone who belonged to a gens. Ideally, all of them probably ought to have a link to the gens somewhere on the page. But I felt it would be quite distracting to see a message like that at the top of every page, or to have it on all but the most unambiguous articles.

Lots of Roman biographical pages for already begin with one or more disambiguation statements. There might be multiple individuals named Gaius Ateius or Ateius Capito or even Gaius Ateius Capito (I don't remember if there are, I'm just using this as an example). It seemed to me that multiple cross-references at the beginning of an article were unnecessarily distracting, and that instead of adding another one to every article, the better practice was to list the gens as part of a "See also" section at the end, especially when the "gens" lists many individuals who wouldn't be easily confused with the subject of the biography, or there's already a more specific cross-reference that only leads to people with similar or identical names.

In many instances, of course, there isn't much risk of confusion, but a link to the gens is still a good idea. So there it definitely makes sense to list the gens in a "See also" section. I think that there's a definite value in applying this method uniformly, with "See also" sections. However, I also see the value of disambiguation statements at the head of some articles. My recommendation is to use "See also" at the end of all the articles, and cross-references at the beginning of the article only where it seems necessary to distinguish specific people. Those should be very specific, if possible, instead of referring to the gens as a whole (unless, of course, the person in question is usually referred to only by his or her nomen). i.e. "For other persons named Gaius Ateius Capito," not "For other persons named Ateius". P Aculeius (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, and I suppose I am suffering from PTSD at the hands of the disambiguation police. I just want readers to find what they're looking for efficiently. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

I think you've misunderstood the purpose of an External Links sections. Links are provided within citations (footnotes) for verification of a specific passage (i.e., if another editor wishes to verify an assertion, they allow easy access to the source; or if there's a content dispute, they allow editors to view the context to see whether the source is valid and the info used appropriately; ditto for non-editing users who wish to follow up on a source and see whether it's worth perusing in addition). An "External Links" section is for web sites or other resources (such as downloadable pdfs) that provide general overviews, primary source texts (as for authors), searchable databases, images that are under copyright and ineligible for reproduction on Wikipedia, interactive aids, etc. An external links section is not for single pages out of books used as source in preparing the article. An "External Links" section usually has only a few items, rarely more than five. It should not be confused with a References section. I say this in regard to Baebia (gens). Cynwolfe (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reason for including these links, but they're so long and complex that they make it difficult to edit the page effectively. It seemed that they took up more than 50% of the entire article space, and I wasn't able to tell most of the individuals apart and sort them without moving the links. I don't think it's necessary to provide external links for every citation just because it's possible to locate information on Google Books. Most of these entries could easily be attributed to one or two general sources, or have enough detail to justify separate articles, where a smaller number of inline external links would be more suitable. The way they were, however, seemed to overburden the entire page. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the links to their original locations in the article, relative to the subject of each. Hope this is more acceptable. P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The coding is visible only in edit mode and therefore offers the reader no obstacle; my goal is always to serve readers, and giving them a direct route to sources is an aspect of that. In edit mode, the coding is also not visible in preview, so you can look back and forth between the read-version and the edit-version. The search function can also be used to locate the passage you need within the edit space. You are undoubtedly right, however, that I overdetermine citations and probably contravene some policy by doing so. This is because I've had to waste time on talk pages providing links for people who want to argue about content without having looked up the sources on which that content is based. Instead of having to find it again, I often just provide it while I have it on my screen — usually not more than one or two links per book, because I figure once the reader reaches the book, it can then be scrolled or searched. DYK nominations also need content that can be verified readily by those who decide these things. I myself find it difficult to edit complex tables and info boxes, but, y'know, that's my problem — I don't delete the tabular coding so I can deal with it in a simple list, because somebody else put in a lot of tedious effort to generate that table, you see what I mean? It exists for the finished effect, not for my ease of editing. If I'm wrong to include links within citations, somebody should tell me — I've written more than a few long and complex articles that do this, if you check my user page. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you ...

keeping an eye on all the page-name changes pertaining to individuals? You probably don't have them on your watchlist. They are popping up on mine at a dizzying rate, and I don't know, or have time to find out, whether it's all good, but I'm not assuming it isn't. As is probably evident by now, my interest in and patience for the architecture is limited; I like to write articles as well as I can on minor topics, but I'm cursed with caring more than I should about overall presentation (from my days as a real-world editor).

I confess I far prefer having the date with the magistracy, even when there's only one consul, say, by that name. But I have no arguments for that other than what helps me when I start typing in the search field and start getting a menu.

Finally, I want to say that I really appreciate the contributions you are making, and your courteous and even elegant tone in debate. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Cynwolfe. I'm glad to know that my work is appreciated, even when I disagree with my fellow editors on some of the procedures and details.

I agree that the date belongs with the magistracy, if it's necessary to distinguish the individual at all (obviously not needed if there's only one known individual by a certain name, or at least only one individual about whom enough is known to justify at least a short biographical article).

I have not been following all of the changes to various pages, although I did notice a number of problems with the Publius Furius Philo page cited and moved yesterday, and as there were no real source citations and much of what was said was unsupported, or redundant, I took the opportunity to revise the entire article, as well as make various minor changes to the gens.

One advantage of the work I'm doing on the various gentes is that, once it's finished, you should be able to find every article about a Roman citizen whose gens is known (or suspected) simply by visiting the article about the appropriate gens. Then each of those articles can be revised as needed to be logical and reasonably consistent with similar articles. If you visit my article, List of Roman gentes, you will find links to all of the ones I've finished working on, which includes all of the letters A and B, a small part of the letter C, and a few noteworthy gentes under other letters. As a rule, if the name of the gens has a blue link, I've already revised the article on the gens, although not individual articles about its members. One exception I believe is the gens Lollia, for which there was already a link entitled Lollia (gens). In any case, listing all Romans under their gens should make it very easy to find just about all Roman biographical articles quickly and easily. P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great (about being able to find an individual through the gens). People (some people) shouldn't take debate over the procedures and details so personally, as long as we share a goal of providing high-quality, easy-to-use content. In defense of rules-citing (which I hate, because I've never been able to exorcize the adolescent in me), it is nevertheless a good thing to have them, and I completely understand why long-term editors use them. You and I spend a lot of time explaining, when I think people who have been editing for years (I've been for only somewhat over a year) know that most of the time it's fruitless to butt heads with people who are trying to win, not arrive at a consensus. But I actually don't think anyone in this most recent discussion over naming is a mere belligerent, which is encouraging. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anicia

Why don't you discuss such moves before making them? Was this move so urgent that no previous discussion was possible? --TakenakaN (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were taken aback, Takenakan. I considered very carefully what to do with the material you added. But I concluded that it was substantially different from the article to which it was added, and had a number of issues that were best dealt with separately. It didn't clearly deal with the Anicia gens, but with another family that had no clear relationship to them; it treated them in a different manner, had NPoV issues (in my opinion), and required you to reformat the entire article about the gens so that the basic information was changed from section to subsection status, elevating the new material to greater importance than the body of the original article.

You also added information that did not clearly apply to the gens (such as an origin in Praeneste), and much of it appeared to be speculative or conjectural, based on recent genealogical treatises about Descent from antiquity. Some of the articles linked to no other sources and did not clearly correspond with any traditional sources of classical history. Some of the individuals did not have the nomen Anicius and did not clearly belong on a page about the gens, even if the two families were related... which, as I pointed out, is not clear, given the lapse of four hundred years between the last known members of the gens and the first imperial Anicii.

As I stated, some of these individuals are clearly historical persons, although their relationships to one another and to the gens are not apparent from historical sources. So they may be properly linked to that page under a new subsection about members of the gens in imperial times (but not a huge new section demoting the rest of the article to subsection status). But for that we need proper and non-speculative attribution to historical, and not genealogical sources. The rest of the material does not belong in an article about the gens Anicia. I felt it would be better to move this material to its own page than to reformat it to be consistent with the formatting of the article to which it was added, which would have required deleting a great deal of it. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The gens Anicia originated in Praeneste. There are many inscriptions of Anicii in that city, and the one of the aediles curules of 304 BC was called Quintus Anicius Praenestinus. Such proofs are not related to speculative arguments as Descent from antiquity. The members of Anicii I listed are considered Anicii by historians (not Settipani). As regards the structure of the article, I organised it in Republican and Late Empire sections. Finally, if something seems "unclear" to you, it does not mean you are allowed to cut away. You should discuss it before acting. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of Quintus Anicius Praenestinus until you mentioned him, although I have since found him in Broughton. This is sufficient to suggest that the gens might have been of Praenestine origin, although it is not indisputable proof. You should have mentioned this when revising the article.

However, as you can see from the related articles, persons possibly belonging to a gens in imperial times, however late, still belong in the list of members, and do not receive a new section. As revised, these persons became a primary focus of the article, while the sections about the gens itself were demoted to subsection status. This was not how the page was designed to work.

I am sorry for acting in haste, and will try to work the material back into the article in the proper format. But I must also ask you not to reformat these articles in order to emphasize the persons in whom you are interested. P Aculeius (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

These persons were members of the family; why they should not be mentioned if they are noteworthy and pertinent to the article itself? The fact that you are not interested in the Late Empire does not mean that the article about the Anicii should not mention Late Empire members of this family. Even more when it was in Late Empire that this family rose to prominence, with several consuls and members related to imperial families. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The persons who appear to belong on the page are being included. They simply need to be included in the proper, limited format for which the page was designed. Additional information pertaining to the relationships between the various members of the family, and their significance to Imperial politics, the development of Christianity, etc. should be discussed in a separate article.

Entries for members of the gens in Republican times are limited primarily to the years of major magistracies, with additional information appearing in the individual biographies of each person, unless there is not enough information to justify a separate article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On a semi-personal note …

If I could offer what may be inappropriately personal advice, what if you just walked away from Anicia (gens) for now? The lack of other editors' interest tells you this isn't the most important contribution a person of your skill and knowledge could be making. I just linked to Titia (gens) in two new articles, for instance (Mutunus Tutunus and Tasgetius). And there are far more important gentes you could be organizing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate advice at all, Cynwolfe. I've been thinking I should do that for quite some time. It's just very difficult to give up without giving my best effort. I thought that perhaps the other project members would object to the deletion and modification of properly sourced material, just because Takenakan prefers to write it differently, and that they'd suggest that he should back off. But as that appears unlikely to happen, I see no real choice but to abandon the effort, and hope that he doesn't decide to take over the other articles I've written like he has this one. The prospect of this happening with other articles in the future is what makes me reluctant to give up even now. If it happens repeatedly I may decide to abandon the entire project of making articles for Roman gentes.

You are correct in that there are more important articles in the field for me to work on. Looking at the category:Roman gentes, I saw a number of ones for which pages of some sort or another already exist, and those are, I think, the best priority for me to work on. I've already made what I think is a fair revision for Julia (gens), although the number of articles needing links redirected to it is quite formidable! At least I was able to fix several dozen double-redirects. I'm presently working on the Junii, and when that's ready I may work on some of the other gentes that already have an article or page of some sort, or resume work on the letter C. Since you've just linked to Titia (gens), which if memory serves is quite small, I'll try to add that later today. P Aculeius (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much. Hadn't expected that prompt attention, just thought you might move it higher on your to-do list. I think I understand what you're saying here. It's why I rarely edit major articles in the areas I'm most interested in. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Caeculus and others

Thank you for your help with the article. I have speculated (with no documental evidence) that the stories of Caeculus, Servius Tullius and even Romulus (at least in one version related by Plutarch) reflect a situation that seems to be very primitive, ie that in which there is no relationship betweeen the natural father and pregnancy. I have thought of a preservation in myth of ideas proper to the age of the matriarchal system. This should be very ancient. On second thoughts however it came to my mind that these stories seem more appropriately be a cover for incest. This is stated explicitly by Dionysius of Hal. about Amulius and Ilia and looks very likely for Caeculus. In the case of Servius it looks that could be a similar case, apart that the mother was not a relative of the royal family. Of course this is common when referred to hierogamies, as in Latium Fortuna and Jupiter or Vulcan. However while translating from Italian the article Lex regia I came across a law of T. Hosilius's that punishes incest with sacration to Diana. This should imply that the practise was not very uncommon. Diana too is a very appropriate choice with her inherent aporia: a virgin that protects pregnancy and delivery. Just speculations...Aldrasto (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. I was only going to mention him in connection with the Caecilii, but I saw what appeared to be an instance of vandalism, and several sentences that could have been made clearer with minor edits for grammar and punctuation. I'm glad you approve! P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you take requests?

In your gentes project, are you proceeding alphabetically, or do you take requests? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The original plan was to work alphabetically, but I've found so many reasons to make exceptions since then, that it wouldn't disrupt the project at all to jump ahead. The main reason for doing it is so that other people can get the information sooner. Another editor's convenience is a pretty good example of that. So let me know which gentes you need, and I'll get right on it! P Aculeius (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Marius, then. I've a couple of paragraphs to go on Marcus Marius Gratidianus, and it seems as if all the M. Marii are rather obscure. Checking Broughton, I was intrigued to find that Sertorius had an M. Marius flee to him in Spain in the first half of the 70s. I haven't found any mention of a wife for Gratidianus, or any suggestions of progeny, but it would be splendid if this Sertorian quaestor were the son of Gratidianus. Gratidianus was the nephew of Gaius Marius by both birth (his sister's son) and adoption (adopted by his brother Marcus). If Marcus Marius the brother of Gaius is adopting a son, and the son goes by M. Marius, where else are M. Marii coming from? It's a hard thing to search for, though. And the date range is awfully narrow: if the quaestor were 30 in 76 BC, and if Gratidianus were 40 in 82, he was 'begetting' when he was only 16 — not common, particular for a non-patrician. (But these dates are the strictest I could come up with.) Yet Sertorius gave this quaestor Marius rather extraordinary responsibilities, if he isn't one of the Marii. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Brave soul

I salute you as a brave soul on the hoop-rolling thing. I was feeling somewhat apologetic that I reacted so vehemently to 'where members of this project sit,' which struck me as 'pick a side' or a call toward some kind of cleansing project. I was thinking I'd overreacted, but I don't feel so apologetic if what you observed is true. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe. Nice to know that for all my tendency to annoy people I actually make some sense now and then! The discussion got a bit technical and long-winded for me, so I may have missed something important. But it looks to me as if the fellow making all the edits now has just as much of a bee in his bonnet as this Haiduc character, and that's not good for the articles. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, 'disproportionate rhetorical vehemence' is my middle name. Quite a long one. In real life, however, I'm actually easy to get along with and known as a gracious hostess when I decide to come out of the scriptorium. And just so you don't think I'm crazy about the hoop-rooster thing, here's a vase painting depicting none other than Ganymede, aka Latin Catamitus. What I love about antiquity is that it's elusive and alien and seems to hold still so we can study it gravely — and then you realize you've changed from looking, and neither the Seer nor the Thing Seen is the same. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to drop by and just mention a few things as a courtesy....but I see you have made a decision about my good faith. I won't bother you further except to say this, the edits made by Haiduc over the past few years have raised red flags by a number of editors for varying reasons. All attempts to personaly work with the editor had failed, all attempts to notify admin seemed to go unanswered for a very long time and many articles on Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman History have been effected. On the Hoop Rolling article, I did not remove the mention of Ganymede or the pederastic traditions, I just changed the image itself to remove the emphasis on the Zeus Ganymede legend that I felt had no real place in the article. When there are vases and Greek history that deal with actual youth at play with a hoop, why use the ganymede image and discuss the mythical gifts given in a legend? It seemed unencyclopedic to me, but you may have a differnet view.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aurelia (gens)

Hi, P. I participate in a group discussion online that recently touched on the name Aurelius appearing in inscriptions in Gaul where it seems to refer to Gauls so named because of a grant of citizenship by an Aurelius. A participant provided a link to Aurelia (gens). This person mentioned that Marcus Aurelius is really not of the gens Aurelia, but that he was unclear why therefore he went by this name. The article Marcus Aurelius isn't very illuminative either. I pointed out your explanation on the Talk:Aurelia (gens) page. Obviously we should not have to point people to talk pages when they're looking up something in the encyclopedia, so I was wondering how or where you thought this explanation might best be integrated into an article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Having given this a great deal of thought, I have to say that the solution depends very much on how we frame the problem. Is it:

1. That an explanation of Adoption in ancient Rome as it relates to Roman naming conventions should be placed or linked to in pages about individual gentes;
2. That such an explanation should be placed or linked to in articles about prominent persons whose names were changed as the result of the same;
3. That the issue needs to be treated more explicitly on one or both of these articles, which don't really focus on it, or in the article gens, which would also be a logical place, and if so whether it should be treated primarily in one or equally in all of them; or
4. That a new article about adoption into a gens and its effect on nomenclature should be considered?

I would say that no. 4 is probably the least desirable solution, since the topic properly belongs on the three existing pages, if not primarily on one of them. I'm having a hard time deciding which of them would be the best place for such an explanation, and think it might be properly discussed on all of them, with appropriate emphasis on each one.

As for individual biographies, I suggest that persons with multiple and confusing names at different periods of time in their lives be given a new section or subsections explaining how those names changed and how they were used.

For those unfamiliar with this issue, it was common for prominent Romans to adopt members of other gentes for various reasons. Sometimes they were childless, had no sons, or had lost one or more of their own sons; sometimes they wanted an heir to carry on their name and legacy after their deaths; sometimes they seem to have wanted to share their fortune with those who had been less fortunate; in imperial times it was common for the emperors to use adoption as a means of grooming successors or potential successors, with the goal of creating a stable political succession. Adoptees could be children or adults of any age, and were sometimes adopted posthumously by will (occasionally wills of dubious authenticity).

Normally an adopted son assumed the name of his adopted father, but this could be done in various ways. If Quintus Cucumbrius Bassus adopted Marcus Marmotius Maximus, the most common result would be that the adoptee would be called Quintus Cucumbrius Bassus Marmotianus. But he could also be called Marcus Cucumbrius Bassus Marmotianus or Quintus Cucumbrius Bassus Maximus.

Since an adoptive name wasn't specified by the document of adoption or any known law, the only consistent feature was that someone who was adopted into another gens (sometimes people were adopted by members of their own gens) was that they acquired the nomen of the adoptor, and legally became a member of that gens. In theory a plebeian adopted by a member of a patrician gens became a patrician, and a member of a patrician gens. Although in the case of the Junii Silani, it appears that patricians were adopted into a plebeian gens and kept their patrician status — unless, that is, the Junii Silani were already considered patricians, and the usual belief that all of the later Junii were plebeians is mistaken.

But even the assumption of a nomen by an adoptee could be discarded at will, or recognized or ignored by other people. Marcus Junius Brutus was adopted by Quintus Servilius Caepio, and theoretically became Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus. Sometimes he used this name, but most people still called him Marcus Junius Brutus. And in the imperial family, names seem to have been used or discarded depending on political expediency, or simply ease of use.

If you sense a lack of focus here, it's because it isn't entirely clear to me what issue we want to address. Perhaps if we narrowed the focus of the question it would be easier to decide how to proceed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my question was much narrower: Shouldn't Marcus Aurelius's name be explained in his article as well as you explained it on the talk page? And should the Aurelia (gens) article note this also, more succinctly? Adoption in ancient Rome is a not-bad article, though in passages it reads as if written by a 12-year-old and it lacks a "Nomenclature" section. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Succinct is good. A section or subsection in the article Marcus Aurelius discussing his various names seems desirable, although deciding where to place it looks harder, considering how much discussion there is of his life before adoption. Perhaps it could be worked into the opening paragaph, between his regnal dates and Lucius Verus. My suggestion would be:

<nowiki>He was born ''Marcus Annius Verus'', to which ''Catilius Severus'', from his mother's side of the family, is sometimes added. Upon his adoption by the emperor [[Antoninus Pius]], whose proper name was ''Titus Aurelius Fulvus'', he became a member of the ''[[Aurelia (gens)|gens Aurelia]]'', under the name ''Marcus Aurelius Antoninus''.</nowiki>

As for Aurelia (gens), I don't think it would be a good idea to change all of the articles which include people who were adopted into them. That would be like adding a "standard disclaimer" to just about all important gentes and a lot of unimportant ones. But with respect to this particular article, maybe it could be addressed more clearly, since the question is likely to come up more often here than in most articles. I'll see if I can fix that now. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Marcus Aurelius is a fairly general interest topic, thanks to Gladiator, so a sentence explaining why he bore the name Aurelius doesn't seem misplaced in the Aurelia (gens) article, regardless of the treatment of any other figure. As for the main Marcus Aurelius article, your explanation seems fine, but is too long for the first graf, which needs to let visitors know in broad strokes who he is. It seems more suited to sections that deal with family or imperial adoption. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the section on branches and cognomina, which previously mentioned the family of Antoninus Pius, so that it explains how Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus became members of the gens through adoption. Although it occurs to me that people who only know the emperor as "Marcus Aurelius" wouldn't be at all surprised to find him listed in Aurelia (gens), and if they want to know more about him and why his name was different from the one with which he was born, they could simply click on his name and go directly to his article.

Obviously, Marcus Aurelius is where the topic really needs to be addressed. What concerns me is that so much material comes before the point where he was adopted, that people trying to figure out his change of names might get lost or give up before they find it. That's why I suggested putting it at the very beginning. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mamilius

Hi, P. Hope your gens project is going well. I'm working on a topic that touches on the Mamilii. As I've said before, I don't mean to suggest that you should drop what you're doing and attend to my needs (though who wouldn't mind having legions of people to do that?), but if you like or don't mind fixing a gens article that's getting some current linkage, that's my suggestion, as it's tagged with "multiple" issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get right on it! P Aculeius (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I should let you know that one of the linked articles will be called Turris Mamilia, which may be of use as a link when you note that a branch used the cognomen Turrinus. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's now incorporated into the article, I hope appropriately in your judgment. If you could add a source or two just for the very basics in that section, it would be appreciated. I wasn't sure which of your sources to cite. P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the bee's knees. One question: Does the use of the word "clan" to translate gens bother you? It used to bother me, and I may even have a rant against it floating around somewhere. And now I find myself blithely using it.

I think I'll leave your article as you have it for now. It's probably worth mentioning that the royal pretensions of the Mamilii seem to be reflected in the battle scenario; however, this will be clearer in the article I've been trying to finish on the October Horse, discussion of which is scattered here and there on Wikipedia, than it is now in Turris Mamilia, where I tried to concentrate on topography. When I get October Horse worked out, I may go back and try to shed a little light on the tower thing again as it bears on the gens as a whole, and the nobility of their line. I think I"m about to exhaust my tolerance for phallic gods and blood sacrifice for a while, as should be the case for any sane person. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. I agree, the word "clan", like the word "tribe", has too many connotations unlike what was meant by gens. When I need to translate "gens", I usually focus on the words "family" as the best analogue in English, poetically "house," and "race" for the precise connotations of the word in Roman culture, although there I have to rely on a precise definition of "race" that isn't familiar to everyone, although at least I think it can be picked up through context. I usually mention that it can also be translated as "clan" or "tribe" and then dispense with those words.

Mainly I use "family" because we use that word today for people who share a common surname and are (or might be) related. The word can be used broadly or narrowly in English without confusing anybody, or calling to mind men in kilts, pointy white hoods, bearskin loincloths, feathered headdresses, or with bones sticking through their noses.

Reading your article about the Turris Mamilia, my impression was that any connection with the Mamilii seems very tenuous. There may well be one, but it might have arisen in any number of ways other than as a commemoration of royal pretensions, for which, to the best of my knowledge, aren't even suggested by Livy or Dionysius. Perhaps the tower was built by one of the Mamilii, or one of them lived under it, or was a watchman who used it, or there might have been some legend connecting it with Octavius Mamilius, independent of the ritual battle. The battle may simply have reflected a traditional rivalry between two neighborhoods.

I'm not saying that the suggested symbolism is wrong; merely that it's just about impossible to state as fact when other reasonable explanations readily suggest themselves. The best place to discuss those possibilities is probably in the article about the tower, or perhaps a separate article about the ritual battle. It seems a bit speculative for the article about the gens, where even an important figure such as Octavius Mamilius is limited to two lines. P Aculeius (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

what's up, doc?

Hey, haven't seen much recent activity from you. Thought of you recently when I visited Fulvius, and found that it hadn't been renamed to Fulvia (gens). Hope you're only taking a break. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern! I'm just taking a break, been busy and haven't had a lot of time for this project. I'll try to get back to it this week. I've done a lot of the biggest gentes, so I need to work on the letter "C" and see if I can get down to the bottom. It might be the biggest letter remaining in the project. P Aculeius (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely! Best, Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clodius

I was just looking at Clodius because it's on my watchlist and someone had posted non-English copy (I have no way of knowing what it said, but deleted it). It occurs to me that "Clodius" is not going to sit well with your gens project. At present, it exists to do two things: to explain the alternation in spelling between "Claudius" and "Clodius," particularly in regard to the question of whether the use of the spelling Clodius by the "patrician tribune" P. Clodius Pulcher had any political significance; and to list other people whose names are most often spelled with the -o- (that is, to help users find the right Clodius without having to curtail the info within disambig parameters). I'm guessing that some Clodii of the later Empire may have little or nothing to do with the Claudian gens. At any rate, it's my opinion that Clodius should be maintained as a separate article, but not called "Clodia (gens)" as if it were separate from "Claudia (gens)". Given the importance of Claudia (gens) (few gentes more important), it seems OK to me to segregate the spelling/politics discussion into "Clodius," as dealing with it in the Claudian gens article might require disproportionate attention. (It is of course dealt with in that article, just not at disproportionate length.) Just thoughts in passing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to have a separate article on this topic, and I think it can keep the name it has now. However, I recommend that all of the persons mentioned also be included in the appropriate subsections of Claudia (gens). P Aculeius (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have little or no opinion on this; you do should as you think best. Well, I suppose the only opinion I have is that this would make sense to me because Clodius Pulcher's two brothers favored -au- (can't remember whether this is in the Clodius article, but I did see it stated that one or both of them can be found possibly with the -o- in an inscription? don't remember at the moment, but the point is lack of orthographical consistency in that generation) and the family should be represented collectively. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly-well discussed in the article. Do we really need to do anything with it right now, other than add links in the appropriate places? The only thing I saw that probably should be changed is that Sabine isn't an Umbrian language; it's an Oscan language. Of course, Oscan and Umbrian are very close and might be treated as the same by some scholars, but my understanding is that there are three main branches of the Italic language family, at least on the peninsula itself (thus excluding things like Venetic): the Latin branch, represented by the languages of the Latins, Hernici, and Faliscans; the Umbrian branch, represented by the Umbrians, Picentes, and Volsci; and the Oscan branch, represented by just about everybody else, including the Sabines, Aequi, Aurunci, Ausones, Osci, Lucani, Samnites, etc. I believe that "Sabellic" is a term used by different scholars to mean different things, including specific Oscan-speaking peoples, all Oscan-speakers, and speakers of both Oscan and Umbrian languages. P Aculeius (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't see anything that demands immediate attention; I just knew you were on the Cs and wasn't sure how you might be approaching the Clodius/Claudius issue. Linguistics is not my thing; it interests me mainly as it pertains to helping explore and understand political and religious connections. It's quite possible that I've not represented my sources with utter precision, and even that a source stumbled over the Oscan-Umbrian-Sabine knot, since the scholars I used are themselves not linguists and are drawing on the work of others. I've certainly seen scholars contradict each other on Oscan/Umbrian/Sabine, here or elsewhere.

The main thing that was interesting to me probably contributes to any modern difficulty sorting it out: that "Sabine" became something you might want to call yourself, because it came with an aura of good old-fashioned virtue; thus politicians might stretch their claim to Sabinitas. One line of thought is that during the time of Clodius Pulcher, a fashionable archaism (like Lucretius's self-conscious archaisms in De rerum natura?) is reflected in the choice of -o-, so that the Clodiae using the spelling was a little like dressing as shepherdesses at Versailles. Which doesn't preclude that also being a political marker of sympathizing with the "common man," though Tatum doubts that line of thought. (See how easily distracted I am from an actual question of linguistics.) Cynwolfe (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick impression of the language in the article suggests that your source probably identified Sabine as an Umbrian language (perhaps the writer was using it as a synonym for "Osco-Umbrian", which is confusing when "Umbrian" could mean the language of the Umbri or the languages of the Umbri and their cousins, the Picentes and Volsci). My preference would be to correct it to "Oscan" with a link to Oscan language, although that article too probably needs to be revised insofar as the first paragraph makes it sound like "Oscan" is mainly the language of the Samnites, only to tack on a bunch of other peoples (including the Sabines) a few lines afterwards.

I agree that "Clodius" could have been used for different reasons at different times or by different people, or conceivably by some people for multiple reasons. Both of the main ones you mentioned sound logical, although I personally doubt that it was really perceived as an antique spelling so much as a "rural," "uneducated," or "vulgar" spelling. The pronunciation of the vowel seems to have varied; that probably accounts for why both spellings existed, and why names like Claudia and Paulla are rendered three different ways in Greek; with the vowels αυ, ο, and ω. I don't remember where I read it, but years ago I think I saw where there was a plebeian family that used the spelling "Clodius," although they may have been part of the Claudian gens, or descendants of its freedmen. However, I couldn't really make out a distinct family by that spelling in the DGRBM, so I think that at least historically significant persons who went by "Clodius" were also regularly listed as "Claudius", which spelling has been preferred in most cases. Not that it affects the legitimacy of the article, of course. P Aculeius (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tatum's biography of Clodius doesn't arrive at any conclusions about the reasons for the usage in the case of Clodius Pulcher and his sisters, though I think he leans toward fashionable archaism; he reviews the interpretations in an appendix, as I recall. But he does doubt that Clodius adopted the name for political reasons, on the grounds that the plebs liked the idea of being represented or led by charismatic men of the old aristocracy; that is, the populares didn't have to present themselves as faux common men, but as aristocrats willing to look out for the people instead of the senatorial elite. Any rusticity would be self-consciously affected and faux for the Clodiae; I'm pretty sure I borrowed the comparison to Marie Antoinette and her shepherdesses at Versailles. Anyway, the one section in the article is just about Pulcher and his sisters. I think. In a rush and didn't look back. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

gens Mucia

The page for Mucius (gens) is a mess; see talk page as to why. Another editor has noticed this and left a comment. I'd forgotten about it. I can do some emergency formatting if you are disinclined to move it up on your schedule. I guess I saw no need to waste the effort if you would be attending to it soon. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Troy games

Thanks for making a good-faith effort on that vexed page. I thought your last version was definitely getting there. I do have one theory on why a compromise won't work: there are a certain number of editors (I must say, editors I highly respect) who just don't like infoboxes. They find them reductive. I was about to post an argument that most people looking up the Trojan War on Wikipedia would be students or people who saw a TV program on Troy like the one I caught a bit of last night on my local PBS station, and that if we keep that class of 'most likely reader' in mind, we can figure out how to give them a snapshot of the info most useful to them. One of the hats I've worn in real life is "journalist" in the old-fashioned medium of print; the philosophy there is that an infobox increases the number of "points of entry" into a page for readers by dangling several pieces of info, one of which the reader might find particularly compelling, thus choosing to read the story. This is not exactly the same for an encyclopedia article, where the visitor has already chosen to read the article, but there are graphics principles that can apply.

Another of my "hats" is teacher: I've taught mythology to large (like, 200 students) university lecture classes, so I know that the reason people like Greek mythology is the story. You have to hook them with the story, show how it embodies something of meaning that over centuries people (and not just Greeks) shaped for their own purposes — and yet the story remains recognizably the story. This is completely relevant to questions of narrative in the Google age. Myth is myth because it continues to speak to something human: only when you make that connection with students can you move on to the scholarly deconstruction.

I was perfectly serious once when I said it would make me happy if 11-year-olds were printing out WP infoboxes on Greek and Roman gods, cutting them up into flashcards or trading cards, and using them to learn. (Writing your own Greek myth was an assignment when my daughter was in sixth grade.) Yes, infoboxes are reductive — but that's their purpose. I think you know by now that I take scholarship seriously. But I also take Wikipedia's generalist purpose seriously. The reason I toil away in obscure corners (a recent fave is Vagitanus; I mention that one because some might find the chosen image frivolous and unscholarly, whereas I think it makes the point in an immediate human way) is that it's too frustrating to work on a major, attention-getting article like Trojan War. I start wearing my teacher's hat and thinking about how best to convey the point of the material — and there's no WP policy that covers that.

This is all just to say: I sympathize with the throwing of the hands in the air. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe! I was so frustrated by the responses this morning that my first reply was rather unpleasant (not actually nasty, but not very helpful either), and only after thinking about how deeply I might regret that as my last word did I make a final effort to lay out my case and then tentatively wash my tentac... hands of it. But your message really does make me feel like I did my best and that someone appreciates the effort. Again, thank you so much for your encouragement! P Aculeius (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Man, what are you doing? We were arguing for an infobox not a navigational template. You are our best contributor (our Achilles). You can't give in now. We need you.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir, can you please help me with my solution. That we include both the infobox and the template. Please. Otherwise it would've been a waste of time arguing for all these days.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing to fight a battle that can't be won. A few people, such as myself and Cynwolfe, were willing to consider a compromise under certain conditions, but the other side wasn't willing to compromise, and nobody can make them. When it became clear that we couldn't arrive at a solution that would be acceptable to a clear majority, and that the other side would keep throwing up objections and roadblocks at every step, it became pointless to keep fighting. A compromise only works if both sides are willing to agree, and here they weren't.

I respect Cynwolfe's opinion here, because she's tried to be reasonable, supported an attempt to reach a solution that would accommodate everybody, and only threw in the towel when it became clear that at least half the people in this debate wouldn't accept any compromises. If generally agreeable editors such as her see no hope in continued resistance, that's a pretty good sign that we won't be able to prevail. It's time to give in and move on to the next task. P Aculeius (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We were winning. If stupid Doug Weller hadn't called for an RfC, the infobox would've been restored. And you've gotten learn not to give up, not till the very end. We can still win. All I'm asking is for both the warbox and the template to be in the article. Come on, don't throw in the towel yet.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Clodius

Do you have the article Clodius on your watchlist? Someone keeps putting what appears to be Russian text in it. Very strange. I may not be spending much time editing the next few weeks, so I thought I'd mention it to you. Another editor fixed the last batch. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't on my watchlist. It's not quite in the scope of the project I was working on, and since it covered different angles I thought it best to leave it to other editors. If you think I should keep an eye on it, however, I'll add it. I can't understand Russian, of course, but I can read it, and most of what's being added appears to be the names of the persons in question transliterated into Russian. So, while it's not really appropriate, it doesn't appear to be vandalism, either. Just someone whose efforts might be misdirected at the English version of the article instead of a Russian one. P Aculeius (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Carbo

Carbo doesn't require immediate attention, but since it's a cognomen rather than a gens name I thought it ought to be on your radar. It's currently a disambig page, but shouldn't be, as it has a genealogical table. Not sure what that parenthetical Carbone is there for; presumably Italian. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

di Indigetes

I have been trying to research the subject since the entry was still based on Wissowa's old definition. After my notes in the discussion user Cynwolf deleted the list and tagged the section.

Not having access to a good library I have been able to get an article by A. Grenier (1950 in Boletim de filologia 11 supplem. pp. 192-205 on which R. Schilling Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome 1979 seems to draw) and to the works of R. Anttilla Greek and IE etymology in action : Proto IE *ag- and K.Latte's work roman religion (online).

The topic looks hefty. Anttilla bases his work on Latte, Radke's Die Goetter Altitaliens 1965 and Ancellotti and Cerri's Le tavole di Gubbio 1996. He also quotes a work by a certain Niedermann 1944 p. 72 who gives evidence of a verb indigo/ere in the context of the description of the formation of a tumor as a process of driving bodily fluids from within to a certain setting place. Since the bibliography is not in the preview I have not yet been able to track it down yet through google.

Another problem in the article is the inscription from Aletri that is not referenced. It is very interesting for its content though for it mentions Fucinus, Summanus, Fiscellus and the Tempestutes.

I tend to agree with Anttilla 's analysis that interprets Indiges/indigetes as actor, impulsor or driver from within i.e. from ago I drive (as for Agonalia Indiges) and not from *ag-ye>aio. Latte's analysis too points to the same direction as indigitare would mean to bring forth/out the divine power (of the Tiber, Moon) or evocatio of the enemy's gods and gives ag- say as impossible.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Di Indigetes

I am trying to edit this article. There is an interesting quotation from an inscription from Alatri but it is unreferenced: it mentions some important dieties.

Also I started my work using an article by A. Grenier 1950 and the book by R. Anttilla 2000 linked by Cynwolf. Its bibliography is mostly obscurated so I cannot track down the most interesting quote by a cetrtain Niedermann 1944 p.72 which gives an example of the verb indigo used as meaning to drive to a certain place / effect. Sorry for the trouble and thank you for the attention.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

UNRV.com forum

I felt I should pass on some very positive feedback for your wiki contributions - well deserved IMHO.

UNRV forum

Keep it up. 160.62.4.10 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Laenas

Would you care to add Laenas to your watchlist? I just caught a bit of vandalism there dating to March 2009. What's worse, I've actually edited the page before, though in my (poor) defense it was to add a category and I didn't actually read the text. I'm editing only sporadically these days. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I haven't worked on the Gentes project for a few months, but I do keep an eye on all the ones I wrote and a few related articles. I hope to get back to the project soon. P Aculeius (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

your comments

I was so, well, relieved might be the word, when I read your last comment at the AfD. I'm flummoxed by the increasing use of OR and synth arguments to suppress content in ways I find incomprehensible. I can't tell whether people using these arguments are disingenuous or sincerely imagine that a comprehensive encyclopedia article on a topic of any complexity can be written without combining sources. These arguments often seem to confuse presenting a summary of scholarly consensus (that is, shared or complementary views) with synthesis, which the policy clearly states means to combine sources in a way that results in or points to a conclusion not intended by the sources. "Originality" is often applied in ways that suggests if you write an article that's anything other than an abstract of a single piece of scholarship, you've done "original research," even though the policy on presenting a neutral POV clearly requires representing a range of views, and even though an article that relied on one source would be tagged for doing so. It takes me forever to write an article these days, because I'm so anxious about fending off these kinds of arguments before they even start. Anyway, just letting off a little steam, but your sanity is always so very welcome, even and especially when we might not agree on a point. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Annia (gens)

I read the clause as non restrictive but as I am by no means an expert in the field of Roman history I'm quite happy to bow to your evidently superior knowledge of the subject and have reverted the edit. PRL42 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Kythira spelling

Hallo Aculeius,

I read you explanation for the transliteration of the word from Greek to English and I was wondering why there is no such an issue with Antikythera. Thanks. --Dia^ (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

When I expressed an opinion about a proposed move, I didn't really intend to propose similar moves for every other article to which the same principles could be applied. While it might be logical to make such a move, my support for the proposal was limited to the one article. I'm not on a crusade to change all modern Greek spellings in article titles to English spellings, even if I might favour some of those moves individually.

I also note that, according to the article, in antiquity the island was called Aigila or Ogylos, not Anticythera. So the name Anticythera, while consistent with the English Cythera and English transliteration of Greek names, isn't supported by the same weight of familiarity to English speakers. It might be important just how long the island has been known by this name, or whether it appears in many historic or scholarly works prior to the 20th Century.

Consistency weighs in favour of such a move, but since the modern Greek spelling seems to be more familiar, at least due to publicity surrounding the "mechanism," which is usually described using the modern Greek, it would also be reasonable to leave it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Roman naming conventions

I see that you've made some edits to Roman naming conventions. Are you fairly satisfied that the article is sound? I ask because I trust your expertise in this. Any understanding I have is limited to Republican naming, which is far more straightforward.

I ask also because I've come to believe that Roman naming conventions for females should not exist as a separate article. I have a suspicion that it originated as a POV fork, or perhaps was split from the main article in the early days of WP when a warning used to pop up to advise that a page exceeded a certain size and perhaps smaller articles should be created. For instance, Roman naming conventions for females used to say, more or less, that the sameness of Roman names for daughters showed how little women were valued in Roman society, when of course all Roman naming, particularly in the Republic, is characterized by sameness, one of the best examples being all the Lucii Valerii Flacci active from the 90s through the 50s BC. I feel that the naming of women makes more sense in the context of a general introductory discussion of the gens name and its centrality to Roman identity, and I don't see any reason to repeat so much of the background, without which one gets the above unfortunate impression that Roman women were thought of as undifferentiated chattel. So what would your opinion be about the the validity of merging the content of Roman naming conventions for females into the main article? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the two articles could be merged and treated together, but I think that would require a fundamental rewrite of the primary article, which might take several days to accomplish. I have a full-time job and don't have the time to do this kind of work the way I did a couple of years ago, but would like to take this on if you feel that there's no rush.

This probably needs to be developed outside of the current articles. I'm not used to doing it that way, so if you could help walk me through the process it'd be very much appreciated. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to come back and respond. Of course I'd be glad to help you any way I could. I'm not sure what work method you have in mind, but have you ever created a user page to develop a draft? I've usually drafted articles offline, but I have a few online for articles that are intricate and perplexing, or that posed some obstacle (like a missing aspect that needed developed in a separate article first). If you wanted to replace the entire article, you could just start a draft from scratch on a user page, and work on it at your leisure, calling it User:P Aculeius/Roman naming conventions or whatever you like. You could also copy the existing article, or sections of it, onto such a page, if you wanted to rework the article using the existing framework. If you think the article is OK in outline, though, you could approach it on a section-by-section basis. I feel that I'm being vague, so I'd be happy to answer specific questions with, one hopes, greater clarity. (Replacing the whole article may or may not provoke any of the original editors still lurking around.) Cynwolfe (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, P Aculeius. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 03:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Just saw your name on my watchlist and wanted to say hi, since I haven't seen you around for a while. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cynwolfe. I saw your comments on the Greece and Rome project talk page this morning, and (eventually) browsed my way to John Reinhard Weguelin, an English painter best known for "Lesbia," a painting I've come to like over the last few years. The article was quite short and poorly organized, so I revised it as best I could, given the fact I could only find one good source and some paintings and drawings to describe. Now I'm trying to link related articles to it. If you have time, would you take a peek at Weguelin, and suggest ways I could improve the article? I think it looks good from an aesthetic viewpoint (I really focused on the art), but it needs more scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is a very pleasant labor of love. I'm sure, yes, you could find more scholarship, but if you don't want to do more, then don't do it. It's a nice read, and can always be pedantically beefed up in future. I did adjust the top image. You might want to take a look at WP:Images and the image tutorial (which I reviewed for myself just this morning). The trouble is that what looks nice on your screen may not adopt well for all devices, and I'd say the gallery parameters are too large. I'd like to see at least one image, maybe the mermaids, in the text section (since other mermaid works are discussed there). People can always click on images to see them larger. I do tend to blow up maps and images with fine details, especially at the top, but I'm starting to become more conscious of people who use small-screen devices, and try to do this only for the top image, or in articles with a high ratio of text to image. Hope you've been well! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe. Been busy at work, not much time for Wikipedia editing, since every article I edit seems to involve moving/re-arranging/referring to dozens of others! I was worried about the size, but the top image didn't seem too big after I saw it at full size! Still, I was aware it was large. Now it seems too small to me... maybe I can get it somewhere in-between! I had it at 400 px and I think default is 220. Maybe 350 will work, or if not then 325. I did want to bring out the color and detail, since the original in Wikimedia commons has a pretty good resolution. I'll reduce the size of the four in the gallery, too. As you suggested, I could move one of the images to the list of paintings, but I hesitate to do this because none of these four are actually described in that section, two being illustrations from Macaulay (mentioned in the lead), and the other two of unknown provenance, date, or significance. I might prefer to revise the list of works to be shorter or else less monolithic, but I'm not really sure of the best way to do that. Perhaps I should leave that to someone with more knowledge of painting and painters' biographies. P Aculeius (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mommios

Hi Aculeius, whoever added the "also known as Leucius Mommius", was giving a Latinized transliteration of the Greek form of his name as found at Plut. Marius 1: Γαΐου Μαρίου τρίτον οὐκ ἔχομεν εἰπεῖν ὄνομα, καθάπερ οὐδὲ Κοΐντου Σερτωρίου τοῦ κατασχόντος Ἰβηρίαν οὐδὲ Λευκίου Μομμίου τοῦ Κόρινθον ἑλόντος· ὁ γὰρ Ἀχαϊκὸς τούτῳ γε τῆς πράξεως ἐπώνυμον γέγονεν, ὡς ὁ Ἀφρικανὸς Σκιπίωνι καὶ ὁ Μακεδονικὸς Μετέλλῳ. I don't edit Roman history articles, so I don't know if you all include such forms as a matter of practice (it would seem odd to me to give the Greek), but I drop this here in case you do include attested Greek forms or if the passage might be a useful citation. Later,  ^davidiad_.: 15:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Davidiad, that clears up where it came from. I don't normally include transliterations, for a variety of reasons, but I don't do a lot of individual biographies either. However, very few (if any) articles on Romans give Greek transliterations of their names, much less Latinized versions of the Greek transliterations, which naturally would never occur in Latin and shouldn't in English. Unless there's an extremely compelling reason for including it, I'd leave it out. But since this article is within your sphere of study, I'll defer to your judgment. P Aculeius (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

L. Junius Gallio ?Annaeanus?

Hi, I was recommended to talk to you about the title of Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus. I wonder if it is really what we should use this name. The person, born Annaeus Novatus, was adopted by Junius Gallio -- apparently a hereditary adoption. This suggests Junius Gallio Annaeanus, but it is never used. Dio uses "Lucius Junius Gallio" (60.35) and Pliny uses Annaeus Gallio (NH 31.33) -- this latter suggesting "L. Junius Annaeus Gallio". PIR2 gives "L. Junius Gallio (vel L. Junius Annaeus Gallio, antea Annaeus Novatus)". Should the article be called a name that makes sense but is not attested, or should it reflect what tradition provides us? Thanks for any input. -- spin^control 22:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

When I made the article Junia (gens) I found the form "Lucius Junius Annaeus Gallio" in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. That form seems to be used by other authors and historians. I believe Mythikos changed it to Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus to reflect his own interpretation, at the time he moved the individual article. You might want to ask him for his sources before reversing that decision, although I have no problem with doing so. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page, but I don't expect him to answer: the last effort to communicate was in Oct 2010 and it elicited no response. Thanks. -- spin^control 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A deletion discussion

Salve. I thought I should let you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Ambivulus in case you haven't seen it and have any input.  ^davidiad_.:τ 01:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Roman consuls

I might've known I'd be back here soon! If you have a moment, could you weigh in at Talk:List of Roman consuls#Why "C." for "Gaius"?? I'm not seeing what the problem is. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kaeso

See talk:Caeso (praenomen), and let's see if we can't come to a meeting of the minds. This is an extremely low-stakes disagreement, so I'm sure there will be no need for a revert war. Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I absolutely know what you mean about many changes on your watchlist all at once. I've created a talk page for the Praenomina template, and look forward to hearing what revisions you feel it needs. I've made a few of these navigational templates on othe projects, so if you find the syntax daunting, I can probably tackle it.

Is there a conventional English pronunciation for Caeso? By rights, it should be /ˈsiːzoʊ/, on analogy with Caesar (and caesura); but I've never heard the name pronounced in English. Its Latin pronunciation, by contrast, is more or less a known quantity... Q·L·1968 ☿ 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Aw, cheers! You know, I was going to give you a barnstar for all your work on the whole praenomen series, but now it would just look derivative. Seriously, thanks, I'm really touched! Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domitia (gens), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Augustan Age (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Drusus

If you can spare a minute, could you take a look at the intro to Drusus? Some amusement seems to have been put in place. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

reverting my edit

Dear Publius Aculeius Spina Arcanus ... greetings!

I notice you have reverted an edit I had made to Didia (gens).

Firstly, thanks for explaining your revert ... there are many contributors who do not explain, and that only leads to unnecessary edit wars.

Secondly ... I fully agree with you that such discrepancies should not be changed if that is how they appear in the source material. When encoutering such examples, I tend to add [sic] after the incorrect name. Admittedly, I do not have access to the source material, do you?? I admit to have based my edit on an assumption, that being an ancient Greek book is very unlikely to have called the Persian Gulf by any other name. Do you know, for a fact, that Cassius Dio actually called it that? I would appreciate a link to the source material if you have that available.

Thirdly (and not least!), please allow me to correct your explanation that the Persian Gulf and "arabian gulf" are synonymous ... they are not. Persian Gulf is an internationally-recognized name for a geaographical feature on planet Earth. "arabian gulf" is no such thing. Pre-empting a response, I offer the following example : say the Americans woke up one morning and said "let's call it the 'Gulf of the USA' instead of the 'Gulf of Mexico'" ... this does not make the two "names" synonymous. I'm sure you agree, and i am open to discussion.

I will, for the meantime, leave the article as it is (your version), until we both decide what to do with it!! i.e. change or [sic] or ...

Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf is a synonym for the Persian Gulf, although a lesser-used name. If we were relying on recent sources, where someone had arbitrarily substituted Arabian for Persian, I would agree with your edit. But I was relying on source material over a hundred years old, with no recent political agenda. However, I have changed the link, because it should never have redirected to Persian Gulf in the first place. The reference to a fleet built in the Arabian Gulf was to the body of water known by that name to the ancients, and that was not the Persian Gulf, but the Red Sea. In writing the article, I checked the reference and was sent to a disambiguation page, at which Persian Gulf was the first-named synonym. Having momentarily forgotten that the Red Sea was known as the Sinus Arabicus, I erroneously linked the article to Persian Gulf. P Aculeius (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flavia (gens), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Honorius and Nomen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Didn't want to get off-topic in the discussion, but I wanted to say an amen for this comment. Although one must be wary of new evidence from archaeology, in several areas of Roman life I believe that 19th-century scholars are likely to be more in tune. These include agriculture, sailing, horsemanship, and medicine, though many more could be named. I think it's important to be aware that our modern preconceptions and outright ignorance can get in the way. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Caecilii Metelli

Just wanted to point out the separate article Caecilii Metelli, in case you didn't know it existed. I'm not sure it needs to exist independently from Caecilia (gens), although on second thought I guess it should, as a human dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it needs to exist, since it doesn't really add to the article about the gens as a whole, except in providing a probably speculative family tree. If it were close to 100% duplicative, I'd probably change it to a redirect, but since there's some non-duplicated content, including the diagram, I hesitate to do that. Any suggestions on what to do? P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the back story is that I was needing to link for some reason to Caecilii Metelli, and was torn between the obvious and linking to the more general gens article, knowing that you would've vetted the latter. But now that I think about it, what if Caecilii Metelli became a purely "human disambiguation" page for men named Caecilius Metellus? All the info beyond usual disambiguators could be stripped out (and any info not in the gens article added, if it could be verified), and on the dab a "see also" for Caecilia (gens)? Come to think of it, I was looking for Caeciliae Metellae; I don't know whether they would need their own dab, or what. How does that sound? (I got distracted by something last night and today and got nothing done I was planning to, BTW, including help with curia). Cynwolfe (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't want to call attention with a subhead, but when you took a stand against bullying of a particularly nasty sort, you did something that's good for the project as a whole. I was torn between making a joke about the gourmet quality of my marital charcuterie, and haling the editor into a tribunal (I suspect more hosiery than meat in this matter), but decided I was really only up for ignoring it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was strongly tempted to report the post, but my research on the topic of disruptive editing/personal attacks suggested that attempts should be made to bring objections directly to the attacker before such actions should be taken, except in extraordinary circumstances. I suspected you might be hanging back out of a desire not to feed the troll, but I thought an outsider might be in a better position to respond. In any event, I'm glad to stand behind someone who's a far more patient and conscientious editor than myself, and who usually helps me when I get in a pickle. I've always suspected that a certain account might be a sockpuppet for another editor involved in the same debate. How are sockpuppets detected, then? Anyway, thanks for the appreciation. Now, if I could only come up with anything as nice as your ominous catloaf to present... P Aculeius (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate

I have made the move. (I'm not sure I actually agree with it, myself, but I don't feel strongly and you have a clear consensus on the talk page). That leaves a lot of double redirects; a bot should sort those out within a few hours, and I will check tomorrow that it hasn't missed any. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize this was a move that might meet with controversy, but it's been argued several times in the past, moved several times when it appeared there was consensus to change the title to something else, and then reverted. Quite some time has elapsed since the last attempt. We discussed it on the WikiProject: Classical Greece and Rome talk page for quite a while, and while there wasn't complete agreement on what to call it instead of Julian the Apostate, there was almost unanimous support for changing the name to something else. I proposed what I thought would be the least controversial alternative, which I felt had the benefit of simplicity, neutrality, and consistency with related articles. Although some editors preferred other alternatives, everyone seemed willing to live with this one. I only polled the topic after it looked like everyone had plenty of time to post an opinion about whether we should have a poll, and what alternatives to poll. Considering the past history of article moves, I expected more opposition, but when several days passed with no additional comments, I felt we had achieved sufficient consensus. I appreciate your willingness to support this process! P Aculeius (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Watching?

I was wondering whether you had the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Article alerts page on your watchlist. A couple of current discussions have to do with naming. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cynwolfe, I didn't, but I do now. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I always think of you when I see naming discussions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And amen to this. Hope that's the last word. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Classical Greece and Rome in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Funeral games (antiquity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John O'Donovan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Africanus Fabius Maximus

Hey there.

I'm curious as to the justification for moving 'Africanus Fabius Maximus' to 'Q. Fabius Maximus Africanus'...?

The idea that his name was 'Q. Fabius Maximus Africanus' was accepted in the 18th and 19th centuries, but since then it has been all but discarded and the consul of 10BCE is now almost solely referred to as 'Africanus Fabius Maximus'. The great Sir Ronald Syme in his 'Augustan Aristocracy' referred to him with that name and no other, writing that, "Already by their exorbitant praenomina Maximus and his brother advertised derivation from Aemilii and Scipiones" (p 419). The book, 'Augustus: His Contributions to the Development of the Roman State in the Early Imperial Period', mentions that "... and before long two Fabii publicise and ancestry that is both Aemilian and Scipionic by the praenomina 'Paullus' and 'Africanus' (p. 42). T.P. Wiseman even wrote in his 1970 article, 'Pulcher Claudius', "No variation is known in the nomenclature of Paullus Aemilius Lepidus, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, Paullus and Africanus Fabii Maximi (my emphasis), or Nero Claudius Drusus (after his renaming as an infant from "D. Claudius Nero")." (p. 212). In addition, an inscription from proconsular Africa also refers to him by that name: BCTH-1950/51-105 = AE 1955, 00040, which reads "Africanus Fabius Q(uinti) f(ilius) Maximus co(n)s(ul) VIIvir epulonum pro co(n)s(ul) XXCVII", and his coins from Hadrumentum have him as 'Afr. Fa. Mx.'.

So I'm just wondering what evidence exists to show his name was 'Q. Fabius Maximus Africanus' as opposed to 'Africanus Fabius Maximus'?

Cheers.

--Knobbishly1 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Africanus, Paullus was a genuine praenomen revived by the Fabii and Aemilii. Cossus could be considered a revived praenomen, although whether it is a survival of an ancient praenomen is less certain than the fact that it was a cognomen of the Cornelii which was revived as a praenomen by the Cornelii in later times. Nero is not precisely on point, since even ancient sources noted that he was born Decimus (not to mention that Nero or Nerius is an Umbrian praenomen, which fact was also noted by... I think it was Varro).

18th and 19th Century scholars were aware that most sources named Fabius as Africanus Fabius Maximus, but given the near total inflexibility of the Fabii Maximi when it came to praenomina (even in the earliest generations, all known Fabii Maximi bore the praenomen Quintus, even brothers in the same family), and the fact that Africanus was clearly borrowed from a surname, nowhere else and at no other time used as though it were a praenomen, except when inverting the cognomen, and that it was certainly derived from the Cornelii Scipiones, who used it as a surname, not a praenomen, they concluded that his correct legal name was in fact Quintus Fabius Maximus Africanus, and that Africanus used as a praenomen was an inverted cognomen. It would certainly have been convenient to refer to him as Africanus, since there were many other Fabii Maximi, but no others with Africanus in their nomenclature, and it clearly was fashionable at that time to do weird things with names (such as reviving old or unfamiliar praenomina, or inverting cognomina to use them as if they were praenomina).

I think that the reason why we don't see his name given as Quintus Fabius Maximus Africanus in recent sources is purely practical. In the past scholars tended to look for the "most correct" information even if technical perfection risked creating confusion. Today scholars try to present information in the most accessible manner, which often means jettisoning technically correct information that seems unhelpful in distinguishing one person from another. You'll note that in PW, most entries for which the information is known begin with praenomen, nomen, filiation for two generations, tribus, and then all known cognomina in the order most generally found, omitting only those personal cognomina rarely used. We don't usually express the full nomenclature in modern sources; this was a habit of previous generations of scholars.

What we have here is the name by which Fabius was generally known, and another name which was probably the "correct" form. I think that's addressed in the article, where he's listed with both forms, stating that Africanus Fabius Maximus is how he was usually referred to. That seems to be the most reasonable way to address the uncertainty as to how to refer to him. Deferring to general use, the article usually calls him Africanus, and Africanus Fabius Maximus redirects to him. If we were to change the article on the assumption that Africanus were a genuine praenomen rather than an inverted cognomen (something I find doubtful, as there are no other examples), then the lead sentence should probably be changed to read, "Africanus Fabius Maximus, perhaps originally Quintus Fabius Maximus Africanus, was..." or something to that effect. However, my vote is to leave it as is. P Aculeius (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course you would vote for the page to stay where it is because you were the one who put it there.

The thing is you haven't provided any evidence to show that the consul of 10BCE was ever called anything but 'Africanus Fabius Maximus'.

All of Syme, Wiseman and Edmundson were aware of all the information pertaining to the question of the name 'Africanus Fabius Maximus' (ie. how Roman nomenclature worked, what the Fabii Maximi had done in previous generations, from where the 'Africanus' came), but found - as Wiseman states - that there was "no variation ... known in the nomenclature of ... Paullus and Africanus Fabii Maximi" (p. 212) (which means that he looked into it and found no evidence to the contrary, not that he jettisoned it because it was inconvenient to his argument (which, I might add, it wasn't - it made no difference to his argument whether Africanus was in one category or the other).

In fact, Wiseman does actually point out the examples of Romen men who used "both the traditional style and the transferred cognomen" (p. 211), such as "Sex. Pompeius Magnus, M'. Valerius Messalla Potitus, L. Valerius Messalla Volesus and T. Statilius Taurus Sisenna", thus "Magnus Pompeius, Potitus Valerius Messalla, Volusus Valerius Messalla, Sisenna Statilius Taurus" (p. 211) (providing references for the use of the variations). As opposed to men like Africanus Fabius Maximus, for whom "No variation is known in the nomenclature" (p. 212). (Again, he has no agenda for making this statement, as it has absolutely no bearing on his argument into which category Africanus falls; also proving that he was not being "purely practical", for why then would he go to the effort of noting the variation for these other men, but jettison the evidence for Africanus?).

This is presumably his conclusion (and the conclusion of Syme and Edmundson) because all the contemporary evidence pertaining to the consul of 10BCE (ie. the inscription and the coinage) has his name as Africanus Fabius (Q.f., in the case of the inscription) Maximus, and that is his only recorded name as opposed to men such as L. Valerius Messalla Volesus/Volesus Valerius Messalla etc. for whom there is evidence that they did have a praenomen, but that they inverted their cognomen and used that instead/as well.

As such, what I am saying is that 'Africanus Fabius Maximus' must be accepted as the only name of the consul of 10BCE unless you can provide any evidence similar to what others have provided for the aformentioned figures (eg. an inscription) that it was otherwise.

So do you have any actual evidence that refers to him as 'Q. Fabius Maximus Africanus'?

--Knobbishly1 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarcastic. Syme has his interpretation of the evidence; Mommsen and other scholars had theirs. Neither of us is in a position to determine which is right with absolute certainty. There's hardly any evidence that's survived from antiquity, as Africanus was a pretty obscure figure whose entire life is known chiefly from his relationships to others. To Syme, the lack of variation was important; he seems to have concluded from it that Africanus was being used as a praenomen. Of course, it was just one of several examples he was using to demonstrate something else, so he didn't spend much time discussing the probability. Other scholars reached different conclusions. Unless someone digs up a 2,050-year-old birth certificate, we're not going to get a clear answer.

I'd clearly prefer the conclusion that the older scholars reached, because it seems more consistent with Roman practice, and the other names mentioned by Syme are easily distinguished from it. You'd prefer Syme's analysis. If you feel so strongly about it, then go ahead and move the article back where it came from, but please provide due weight to the probability that his name was in fact Quintus Fabius Maximus Africanus by including that in the lead sentence. It doesn't take much effort to provide two alternative forms of an uncertain name. P Aculeius (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As Africanus Fabius Maximus is the generally used name for the consul of 10BCE, I am going to return it to my original page name. However, I will acknowledge that there is an argument for his name being 'Q. Fabius Maximus Africanus' as long as you provide the references for that claim. --Knobbishly1 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit regarding the gens Lollia

Hello P Aculeius,

I am messaging you about your edits to the gens Lollia, as you completely deleted my updates to the page. I didn't change nor altered anything about the article, all I did was update the article, adding in new people of the gens that I have found and incorporated reliable cited sources. The updated page that you deleted took me a week to put together. I had spent a lot of time and effort updating the gens Lollia article, because I am doing to do articles on the family of Lollia Paulina and that included the red hightlighted articles that were added to the page.

Please be more mindful of the effort, that other editors from Wikipedia put in and spend the time in doing new articles and updating information of current articles on Wikipedia. It is either you contribute in a positive way to articles on Wikipedia or just leave the articles as they are.

Anriz.

When I looked over the edits to the article, I didn't see any "new people" or anything that would have justified a week's worth of work. The only changes I could find were that the illustrations had been moved, and the "see also" section was moved. I looked for additional material and couldn't find any. Clearly all of the paragraphs had been moved, but they appeared to be the same paragraphs that had been in the article already. If they contained new information, that fact was obscured by changes to the article's structure without any apparent reason, which caused all of the paragraphs to appear deleted from one version and added to the other in such a way that they couldn't be compared side-by-side. Restoring missing paragraphs is a simple process, if your edits were lost. It should take less than ten minutes to complete. But in future, please don't move the sections and illustrations around. They were exactly where they were meant to be. P Aculeius (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)