Talk:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus

Initial comments
Pretty useless to include the text without a translation.
 * That is almost true - some specialists might read early Latin and the ordinary people might see something like this exists and know what they don't know. Anyway now it is fixed. I found a translation beyond the copyright laws. I miss the committee tags - this could go under Latin or possibly law (if there is one). It is customary to sign your comments with the tilde's. I suppose you had a reason for your anonymity. Thanks for your comment. Rome was not built in a day and as far as Wikipedia is concerned Remus jumped over the wall not long ago and Romulus is chasing him around with drawn sword.Dave (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

QUI pro QUIS
At the end of line 3, and in line 24, SEIQVES was correctly translated 'siqui' (= sī quī) by Ernout, referenced in the article. Then Randomcritic added length signs (useful), but also changed 'qui' to 'quis'. Old latin QVES is usually interpreted es 'quēs', the original nom. pl. of QVIS, as can be seen in the the same source, and also in newer ones, e.g. Sihler (1995) New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin.

I have also deleted “E appears for Classical Latin i” from the commentary on orthography, since it was based on this single example. This is rather an example of grammatical change, and should go in Archaisms.

The Orthography section has other issues too. For example, NOMINVS nōminis is presented in a way that might induce to think of a phonetic development -us > -is, while it is a change of ending (Old Latin had two possible endings for the genitive singular of the third declension, the original distribution is not known). I appreciate this section, and it was useful for me. I was tempted to correct it, where I think it is unclear or imprecise, then thought it is already on the verge of being Original Research.

I am wondering what is the most economical solution to improve this section. There is certainly already something on Wikipedia on the history of the Latin language. Maybe the explanations should be there, with only short references here. Sprocedato (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I approve of any well-informed improvements to this article. RandomCritic (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)