Talk:Civis Romanus sum

Comments
There seems to be an element of doubt what the correct capitalization of this is. Can someone clarify? PatGallacher (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My copy of Cassell's New Compact Latin-English English-Latin Dictionary (3rd ed., 1966) capitalises the adjective Rōmānus -a -um. However, cīvīs should be in lower case as it is not a proper noun. Opera hat (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles normally start with a capital, so it should be "Civus Romanus sum", I propose moving it there. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * H'm, OK - and all the other articles in Category:Latin words and phrases start with a capital as well. I think they probably shouldn't, but it looks like to alter that would require a proposed change to the entire naming convention. Opera hat (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Latin & diacritics
Take a look at "Veni, vidi, vici".

From what I've been able to find out (Latin not being something I know much about) the mark in question is sometimes used in Latin dictionaries to indicate vowel length (though not used by the Romans themselves).

(This is not intended as a criticism of your edit at "Civis Romanus sum". I'm just sharing.) --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so the 'mark in question' is used by dictonaries to show how the word is pronounced correctly? It seems to me that these marcs act (more or less) like the international phonetic alphabet. However the orthograpical spelling of the word itself (and of the sentence) hasn't changed (right? Please correct me if I'm wrong here). Neither in Latin nor in English (it's clearly a sentence in Latin but can be used within an English sentence). Flamarande (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks man, that was valuable info.


 * The normal spelling hasn't changed, the macrons are just indicative of a practice used elsewhere. How useful they are around here, I'm not sure. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we can remove them completly, I guess. They should be used very sparingly in the text, and certainly never in the title. Flamarande (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 10 September 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Civis romanus sum → Civis Romanus sum – The consensus above is that the adjective Romanus ("Roman") should be capitalised yet this seems to have been overlooked when the page was moved, or else the existence of the redirect page prevented this. Capitalisation is the universal practice in the Anglosphere and consistent with dictionary spelling and practice on the rest of Wikipedia (e.g. Pax Romana). Lo2u (T • C) 01:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support. At least when appearing in English sources, we generally apply English rules for capitalization and punctuation in writing Latin.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Having been overlooked, it should be corrected. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Novae Zelandiae Romanus Sum
I can't resist on how "civis" is as pronounced in Classical Latin. Alnair93 (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)