Talk:catapultæ

Citations problem
AFAICT, the 1966 citation is an extract from an 1868 translation of the History of Rome (Livy). Also the link in the citation didn't display anything at all intelligible for me. DCDuring (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @DCDuring Fixed, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2021
Plural of English ! Surely this can't be right...? Perhaps catapulta can also occur in English, and it's the plural of that? Equinox ◑ 15:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are right about it being the plural of, to be defined as "a Roman catapult". See the Google Books link associated with the third cite at Citations:catapultæ, where the singular also appears. None of the uses on our citations page are italicised and the authors seem to treat it as a naturalised English word. This, that and the other (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I created an English entry at and reframed  as its plural. I think we can call this RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)