Disputatio:Theodosius II

Categoria

The family category "Dynastia Theodosiana" was suggested, but I doubt that Dynastia is right and I don't know that "Theodosianus -a -um" is used in Latin of this family group. If it is, fine; if not, I suggest "Theodosii progenies" (since their ancestor is Theodosius). Better suggestions welcome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:32, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Dynastia is apparently wrong. Cassell's says to translate 'dynasty' thus: "use phrase with domus (e.g. domus Flavia)." Theodosii progenies is presumably just his descendants, in power or not, but a dynasty is a succession of related rulers, or a group or family in power. Hence here maybe Domus Theodosiana? IacobusAmor 01:17, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicion of "Dynastia". We have a couple of old categories named thus, which we ought to change before any more join them. But I am not sure about domus (in spite of the weighty authority of Cassell's!). "Family/dynasty" is far from being the first or obvious meaning of the Latin word "domus", though I agree the sense does occur in classical authors. We have had categories named "Domus" too, one of which was Categoria:Domus Flaviana, and that was a very unfortunate one because "Domus Flaviana" is the name of a house or palace built by Domitian (see e.g. Google). Hence I deleted it a while back. However, I admit that "Domus Flavia", precisely as Cassell's proposes, is probably not ambiguous.

"Theodosii progenies" is logically correct in this particular case, because all these people are descendants of en:Theodosius the Elder, but I am not saying it is necessarily the ideal choice. Any other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget it, then, till we have more of them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 17 Iunii 2010 (UTC)