Disputatio:Sith

Does not " Dominus (fem. Domina) Tenebrae Sith" simply read: "Lord of the Dark, Sith," where "Sith" appears in apposition to the expression "Lord of the Dark?"

Even if "Sith" were declinable, such that it could properly read, "of the Sith," two distinct genitives strikes me as bad and ugly Latin, just as "Lord of the Dark of the Sith" would be bad and ugly English.

Is not the better expression of the title accomplished using an adjective, just as in English, i.e. "Dominus Tenebrarius" vel "Domina Tenebraria?" for "Dark Lord" or "Dark Lady?" Then, when there is some sort of settled agreement on how to render "Sith" in Latin (whether "Sithis, Sithis;" [3rd] or, as has been suggested in the body of the article, "Sithia, Sithiae" [1st]) and there is a meaningful plural genitive that could be used, the whole title might be rendered:

"Dominus Tenebrarius Sithium," or "Dominus Tenebrarius Sithiarum."

The usual Latin order (contrary to a common English practice) is to put appositives second; that would suggest Sith, Dominus Tenebrae, or Sith, Dominus Tenebrarius. For your last example (involving a noun, an adjective, and a genitive noun), Bradley's Arnold's rule says the usual Latin order would be Tenebrarius Sithium/Sithiarum Dominus, with the adjective first, the genitive second, and the noun modified by the adjective third. The classic example (BA Introduction 85) is Vera animi magnitudo 'True greatness of mind'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:01, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Iacobe, you are, of course, entirely correct. I had neglected that rule of style, but your quotationn of "vera animi magnitudo" brought it back immediately. Rufus Obscurus, 15.iii.2018

Truth

I hadn't seen this page before. I notice the words "In antiqua aetate crebri fuerunt Sith". This isn't true, you know. "Dinosauri" yes, "Sith" no. In an encyclopedia we are supposed to write what's true.

But luckily we write a language that has an excellent way of dealing with this problem. In introducing the topic, we say whose assertions or fictions we are about to rehearse. Having made that clear, we continue in indirect speech, transforming main clauses into accusative + infinitive. The return of an indicative main clause will indicate the end of our dependence on the unreliable or fictional source.

Perhaps we ought to make this clear in a guideline? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)