Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement

Mile

See Talk:Mile. The common name is clearly mille passus (preferred by Caesar & Cicero as well as English), with mille passuum (Livy) a distant second. There were 3 "sources" for mille passuum, but none were scholarly treatments of units. Instead, they were simply popular accounts repeating what they saw in places like Wikipedia. — LlywelynII 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your reference is a google search. Clearly, google is not an authoritative source for Latin usage, and google searches are not representative samples. We should get a real source. Rwflammang (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See here for a reliable source. Mille passuum and mille passus are both simply Latin phrases meaning "a thousand paces". Both forms are found in classical literature. In the plural, "thousands of paces" or "miles", only the partitive form is used, milia passuum.

I have no objection to writing mille passus in the article, but clearly we would also need to point out that the plural is irregular and that it is milia passuum.Rwflammang (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The normal rule is that mille (the singular) works (syntax-wise) like an adjective, hence mille passus; and that milia (the plural) works as a substantive, hence milia passuum. It is no surprise that even Romans find this confusing sometimes, but statistically mille passus prevails over mille passuum, and it is also considered correct by the grammarians, so it should be preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.167.254 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pompous ass isn't a very appealing or effective tone to strike when failing reading comprehension quite so thoroughly. Google searches are sources for usage and specific sources were given with the original post. It wasn't a question of whether one (mis)spelling is attested but which one was more common, regarding which your "source" had nothing to contribute at all. Plural forms (especially Latin plural forms) can be left to Wiktionary entries (WP:NOTADICTIONARY) so there's nothing "clear" about needing to decline the term here at all. That said, I do support the idea given that it's irregular in spite of your difficulty with general civility. — LlywelynII 22:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The 1850s were a while ago

and ancient metrology is dependent upon verifying and contrasting literary sources with field work. Even if Smith has held up over time, we should still source the estimated values to more up-to-date scholarship alongside him. — LlywelynII 22:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Era

I suggest we change the WP:Era used on this article to CE/BCE from the Christian based Anno Domini system since this is an article on Roman subject matter. The change was made previously, and could easily be simply reverted back, but seeking consensus here first. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 14:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Since most attempts to overturn the established era in articles are to remove CE in favour of AD, I have to affirm MOS:ERA and reluctantly oppose this proposal unless you can provide evidence that one system or other was used for most of the article's existence. It doesn't help that, when first created, the article used the Christian notation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement&oldid=19974465). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you prefer the AD system? It seems to be far less used on wikipedia than CE/BCE. Which to me, is the better, more neutral system anyway (CE/BCE that is). I wish it was used across the entire encyclopedia, but I'll take it where we can. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I prefer CE and use it in any article I create (where relevant). But my experience has been that there are far more cases of religious zealots trying to change CE to AD. So consistently holding to MOS:ERA creates a line in the sand but it cuts both ways. Yes I think Wikipedia editors are more likely to use CE than than is typical outside professional or academic contexts but there is certainly no discernible favourable trend towards wider adoption. It has become another trench line in the culture wars. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah, there are far more young Americans trying to change AD to CE, because that's what their teacher told them to use. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been around here long enough that opinionated assertions like that are contrary to WP:NOTFORUM and do nothing to improve the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Phoeey - you made (not for the first time) some very opinionated assertions, & I replied on a factual point. We both made speculations as to the motivation of editors changing the ERA, which might not be correct in every case. So far, so normal for WP talk. You then, entirely outrageously, just removed my comment (while of course leaving your own). You have been around here long enough to know that is not acceptable. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be far less used on wikipedia than CE/BC surprises me. Every article linked from this one about a Roman person, war or building uses BC/AD, so far as I can tell by hovering over the links. MOS:ERA is a truce which saves us from attempts by people who feel strongly (see WT:MOSNUM#Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/CE for recent examples of those strong feelings) to obliterate the other usage. Can you say, as MOS:ERA puts it, what reasons specific to its content you have for changing the style of this article? NebY (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in particular, Roman topics are predominately BC/AD, and attempts to change them fail. I wouldn't bother trying. You realize that outside America very many people don't know what CE dates mean? Oppose Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Grano (sing.) / Grana (pl.)

Is there a reason the unit "grano" (pl. "grana") isn't included in the "Subdivisions of the uncia" table? In several sources on this topic, grana are said to have weighed 1/4 of 1 siliqua SteGenevieve (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We'd need those sources. Checking Latin-English dictionaries, neither Lewis and Short[1] nor Smith mention the granum (I think grano is Italian) as a unit of weight, only as being a seed or grain. NebY (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

From the chapter "Roman Weights and Measurements in Glarean’s Liber de Asse et Partibus" (by German mathematician and historian of science and technology Menso Folkerts, Director, Institute for the History of Science, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) in _Heinrich Glarean’s Books_ (2013 Cambridge University Press):

"The long chapter 4 (‘De unciae partibus’) is concerned with the parts of the uncia, the smallest of which is a granum (¼ 1/576 uncia). The Romans had names for fourteen parts of the uncia, and Glarean deals with the meaning of every one, its symbol, its quantitative relationship to other parts and sometimes also to coins which were in use in his time. In this context he quotes classical sources."

I don't have access to Glarean's actual work, so I don't know which classical sources he quotes. I can try to obtain this, if it would help. Additionally, we could search online corpora of classical Roman texts (rather, copies thereof, since no original MSS remain) for "granum" used for a unit of measurement.

And you're correct that "granum" is the singular of Latin "grana," not "grano." (I had just edited an article on Italian units of measurement and my brain was still occupied with that language.) SteGenevieve (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. That's a reliable source telling us that Glarean mentioned the granum, but not telling us that Glarean quoted classical sources for the granum, only that it's among the every one for which Glarean provided meaning, symbol, and quantitative relationship. I'm uncomfortably reminded of the ancient grammarians who competed with each other to provide the most complete set of usages, to the point of including even obscure errors and unique deviations. At about 0.05 g (50 mg) it would not have been an easy weight for the Romans to use; I have used such weights, thin little squares of metal with an upturned corner for the tweezers to grip, but they need a balance with a good fulcrum. So I do wonder if WP:RSs, not themselves relying on Glarean, exist for the use of the granum, sufficient to satisfy WP:DUE and merit inclusion. NebY (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

pes monetalis / pes drusianus

For a very long time (literally hundreds of years) the historians seemed to agree that the contemporary sources clearly declared two different units of length, pes monetalis and pes drusianus, corresponding to the two primary standards that were kept in different places within the empire. Somehow our article does not mention this, and the newer high-quality sources are mum on the subject. It is pretty easy to add text, based for example, on Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1980). "Length-Units in Roman Town Planning: The Pes Monetalis and the Pes Drusianus". Britannia. 11: 127. doi:10.2307/525675., but should I? Our article based on reasonably recent sources declares a single pes value accurate to three digits (296 mm). Is it another case of Britannica oversimplifying or did the consensus indeed change? Викидим (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. That Duncan-Jones article tells us that the pes Drusianus is only attested for Lower Germany and finds "considerable uncertainty" regarding conjectures that its use can be detected in Britain, with some claimed instances more likely to be the standard pes and others indecisive. It doesn't suggest the Drusian was widespread. Still, if there are reliable sources that a primary standard existed for even the pes monetalis alone, it would be worth mentioning that in the article. Britannia, by the way, is a scholarly journal with no relationship to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. NebY (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Britannia, by the way, is a scholarly journal with no relationship to the Encyclopedia Brittanica - yes, of course. I was talking about a cite in our article that points to the The Britannica Guide to Numbers and Measurement as a source for the 296 mm claim. Duncan-Jones is not alone, BTW. It is easy to find a myriad high-quality research papers that discuss the two. However, there is very little published post-1980s (few books, but the ones I found were less reliable). So either the matter is of p.M. and p.D. was considered settled by that time (a common situation in the classical studies), or it was debunked. We should expand our article in either case, IMHO (a separate article on the pes will be even better), but the wording, naturally, has to be very different. Викидим (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Re Brittania/Brittanica - ah good! I've added a little to the text and to the notes column of the table of principal Roman units of length, with further footnote and refs. I find the pes Drusianus is already in our Foot (unit)#Historical origin; I've edited that slightly per Duncan-Jones, citing that article. NebY (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are there seperate dry and wet measure tables

Looking at the article, the only differences between the wet and dry measure tables is the presence or absence of the semimodius, modius, modius castrensis, culeus, urna, and amphora quadrantal; why are there two charts if there is no difference between a wet or dry hemina or sextarius? Why not denote all the units on one chart and mark if a unit was only used for fluids or dry measures with footnotes. I know US customary has different wet and dry units, but we could just have a separate US dry column on a single combined table. Self-described Sophist (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate conversions also differ. We could merge all units into a single table with footnotes and columns specifying types of unit, but why put the reader to the work? Separate tables are easy to read and for a subject like this, don't impose any maintenance burden. NebY (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oncia literally

In table [Uncial divisions of the libra] the ounce is described as lit. "a twelfth", but in the table that follows immediately after, Subdivisions of the uncia, the description states Derived from unus, "one," in the sense of "single unit of weight". The two descriptions are clearly in conflict, and in the reference given for the former, the Oxford English Dictionary, I didn't find that description. I suggest that the two descriptions are unified, that is the former made identical to the latter.--Gciriani (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Uncia is indeed Latin for a twelfth. I've provided a reference to Lewis and Short, which has the convenience of being online, but could add one to William Smith's Latin-English Dictionary, which is a little more detailed but concurs. The gloss "in the sense of "single unit of weight"" is not from Klein,[2] our previous reference, and not supported by Lewis and Short or Smith. Klein does clearly and correctly have "uncia, meaning one-twelfth" but then goes on to claim the Latin word came from "unus"; this might be a misreading of Lewis and Short's "[akin to unus, unicus, unio; Gr. οἰνός]", but that isn't a claim of derivation (and not in Smith's entry). Rather, both Lewis and Short and Smith have "= οὐγκία (Siculian and Etruscan)". The OED's interest is only in the derivation of ounce, which unsurprisingly it describes as being (via Old French) from "uncia, twelfth part"; it doesn't seek a derivation of uncia and we wouldn't expect it to. NebY (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

talent, a unit of mass

According to this Wikipedia page, a talent was the mass of the amount of water in an amphora, i.e. filling one cubic foot: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(measurement)

The talent often gets mentioned in Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome when talking about considerable quantities of money. 148.252.147.9 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)