Disputatio:Lingua Latina archaica

Harrisime, fuit nullum bellum civile anno 672 a.C.n. Visne "ab anno 672 a.C.n. ad primum bellum civile (83 a.C.n.)" dicere? Tum cur 672 et non 753?--Xaverius 09:12, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source may have misled me. It isn't very specific but does say 672 for some reason. Harrissimo 11:01, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Harrisime, annum datum in fonte est in calendario Romano, ita est anno 672 ab Urbe Condita (=81 a.C.n.)! :-) --Xaverius 12:42, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vae mihi! Harrissimo 13:54, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lingua Latina archaica?[fontem recensere]

I must say that in the present form, the article is a bizarre collection of archaic, dialectal and reconstructed pre-Latin forms! As I understand it, Archaic Latin is the Latin of Plautus, Terentius, Naevius, Accius, Legg XII tabularum, parts of Cicero's De legibus etc. For example, it doesn't look like being a good idea to subsume Pre-rhotacismic (i.e., pre-350 BC) forms, such as -asom (> -arum) under the same title as Plautine-archaic Latin. /// I tried to find (but of course didn't find) a formula to the effect of prefixing the article with a caveat: The science of the present article is suspect. Indeed, there's much work to do, if the article is to serve a serious purpose. --Neander 20:16, 16 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]