Another Latin question!

[ParthianBow]

For all of you Latin buffs out there:

The Latin word latro means 'thief' or 'bandit', but can also mean 'guerilla soldier' or 'insurgent'.

What is its plural?

Thank you in advance for any answers.

[ParthianBow]

There was me just asking a simple question, and look what a hornet's nest I stirred up! hock:

To get back to the subject of the thread: I wondered if the plural was latrones. Optio, optiones; murmillo, murmillones.

Thanks all.

*withdraws quietly to allow re-commencement of heated debate*

[Vindex]

There was me just asking a simple question, and look what a hornet's nest I stirred up! hock:

To get back to the subject of the thread: I wondered if the plural was latrones. Optio, optiones; murmillo, murmillones.

Thanks all.

*withdraws quietly to allow re-commencement of heated debate*

Erm...if you noticed my post in amongst all the other stuff yes, it has a -es nominative plural...

[M. Demetrius]

I'm resolved to stay on topic on this thread from here on out. :|

[Kai]

...which is what I said, slightly more elaborated.

But tell me please: if you don't want to go off topic, why then did anyone of you joined in AFTER I answered the initial question about the plural?

[M. Demetrius]

I do not know if ancient Roman law included something like 'illegal combatants'. Please note modern law does not (that is an idea of the previous US gov). There are only combatants and civilians, who are committing crimes should they engage in combat for other reasons than self defense or helping others. Despite committing crimes they still enjoy every protection of a civilian. This is actually one of thousands of reasons why modern states have problemes coping with the current kind of warfare. (as far as I understood my lessons)

That is well beyond the simple grammar answer of singular/plural, don't you agree?

[Robert Vermaat]

this imo begged the question if it has the same implications as in modern western law, especially since modern law is founded on Roman law to a large part.

Sorry, but for me, I do not see the immediate connection between the two. Not in the sense of: 'it begged the question', anyway.

[Kai]

Fair enough, as I also came to the conclusion there is little connection.

As I said I am fine with people not engaging in such questions, and I can accept chastising me for doing so and thereby going of topic, but it seems a bit unfair doing this after a moderator did so and even asked the direct question how Caesar’s opponents were to be judged in this respect.

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm sure no-one meant it as a chastising. Many threads go OT, no harm done I'd say.

And indeed, why not set up a different thread discussing this topic? It's not as if it is a forbidden one, and it seems really interesting.

[M. Demetrius]

I certainly meant no chastising. Just that we were off-topic, and there was nothing else to say on-topic, so there's nothing else to say, from my direction. If you notice, Kai, people rarely quote entire posts only to comment on one part. Brevity. Be at peace. Whether we disagree, or we don't, you are free to have any opinion you wish to hold dear.

[Robert Vermaat]

Topic is split: discussion about (non-)combatants continues HERE.