Disputatio:Roma condita

Delenda. In total unself-consciousness, it presents myth as fact. Compare the exordium of the articles cognate in other wikis and you'll see the difference at once. + A better title: Roma condita? IacobusAmor 00:47, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A plagiary more Drengurio. --Neander 02:45, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% in agreement. This thing has gotta move and get fully and completely overhauled. CeleritasSoni 03:36, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roma condita or Conditio Romae? Of course, for Romans it would have been Conditio Urbis rather than Romae, but I see your points. And just a further question, care Neander, has this Drengurio a longer history of cut-and-past texts into our wiki?--Xave ri us 10:39, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditio Romae = 'The pickling of Rome'. I was taking my cue for Roma condita from the standard phrase a.U.c. = ab Urbe condita 'from the founding of the City'. Hence Urbs condita 'the founding of the City', Roma condita 'the founding of Rome'. IacobusAmor 13:27, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the name, I think "Roma condita" only translates to "the founding of Rome" in a prepositional phrase, due to the Latin idiom governing such phrases. For example, compare "a carthagine deleta" (from the destruction of carthage) and "carthago deleta" (carthage having been destroyed). Outside of such a phrase I think the emphasis is on "Rome founded", "Rome having been founded", or "Rome as founded" which to me reads more like a headline than the title of an encyclopedic article. I would have thought that either "Exordium Romae" or "Conditus Romae" would have been better, because they clearly identify the subject as being "The beginning of Rome", "the founding of Rome".--24.183.186.151 01:06, 12 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]