Talk:Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Place edit
Didn't manage to find it at any of Terence's plays. could anyone give the accurate place of the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.194.109 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
crap edit
"rimed" means covered in frost.
"probably" should go before the verb.
Bull? edit
"Bovi" is plural, and refers to cattle in general, not just males. Thus: "What's legitimate for Jove is not legitimate for cattle". 184.145.40.162 (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think this statement, made 6 years ago and never corrected, is wrong. The person who wrote this seems to assume that cow is "bovus" and its plural "bovi". That's simply not true... As any Latin dictionary can show - e.g., https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bos#Latin, a singular cow - either male or female - is a "bos", and "bovi" is its singular dative case, i.e., it indicates that the cow is an indirect object. I.e., "licet bovi" means now "a cow permits" but rather "permitted to a cow". At the same time, "Iovi" is the dative singular form of "Iovis" (Jupiter) - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iovis#Latin. What is permitted **to** Jupiter, is not permitted **to** a cow. The "to" in both cases is indicated in Latin with the dative case. Nyh (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Justifiable? edit
Calling it a double standard is contrary to it being justifiable, as the page for double standards makes clear. The second paragraph of that page (double standard) implies injustice: "a double standard arises when two or more people, groups," ... "[are] Treated differently even though they should be treated the same way."
It's either not a double standard, or not justifiable. It may be reasonable to either remove "justifiable or otherwise", or remove the claim that it's a double standard at all, or somehow mention both claims as separate.