Talk:Via Aemilia Scauri

Nomen
You seem to have wavered a little here, Massimo! Surely Via Aemilia Scauri is correct, isn't it? Andrew Dalby 08:42, 12 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

my Latin is
very poor therefore I am not able to do the choice between Via Aemilia Scaura (de et en wiki) et Via Aemilia Scauri (it.wiki). I let you decide what the correct name is --Massimo Macconi 09:11, 12 Septembris 2007 (UTC).
 * Ah, yes, I see, I didn't notice the interwiki dispute! Well, the Italians have it right. The proper form is Via Aemilia Scauri, and I have a printed reference for it, so I'll move the article and add the reference. The grammatical logic is clear if you know where you're starting from. Aemilius (like other nomina) is a noun which can also serve as an adjective, meaning "attached to the gens Aemilia". Now there is, as we know, more than one Via Aemilia, and the obvious way to distinguish them was using the cognomen of the creator. But a cognomen is (usually) an adjective already; in this case "scaurus" means with swollen ankles. That isn't appropriate to the name of a road! So we have to use the genitive, to make it clear that this is not the Via Aemilia with swollen ankles, but the Via Aemilia of Aemilius Scaurus. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 12 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your exhaustive and clear explanation. I'll also change the de and en.wiki--Massimo Macconi 12:02, 12 Septembris 2007 (UTC)

Merged
I've completed the merger, although the scaura article seemed to disagree with the scauri article on almost every fact - for instance, saying that it was built "during his term as censor in 109 BC" rather than 107BC here, and this article said that it "connected Rome to Genoa". I can see that it effectively did that, but thought it made more sense to use the version in the scaura article which said the same as the map! It needs a bit of a sort out with reliable sources. FlagSteward (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)