Talk:List of necropoleis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Isn't the roman lady gonna be in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.25.2 (talk) 20:31, May 30, 2006 .

1) Sign your comments. It's not difficult, it's a courtesy to other readers, and it's a rule. It was stated right there on the same screen you used to create your comment.

2) Please explain, because your comment makes no sense whatever. No one can answer your question if no one can figure out what you're talking about. Canonblack 16:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1.)Please do not bite the newcomers.

2.)At the bottom the "Sign your comments" page it explains how to deal with with unsigned posts. Bear21 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the term is primarily used to refer to ancient burial sites, rather than to contemporary sites; well and good.

In the list of necropolises by nation, however, the largest entry is that of Australia! Which lists contemporary cemeteries!

If the list is to include contemporary cemeteries, there are some notablly absent countries - for an example, the United States - which have urban cemeteries that are centuries older than anything to be found in Australia.

The Aussie entries seem anomalous compared to the ancient sites listed under the other nations of the list. As far as I can tell, no other entry is listing active modern cemeteries. Moreover, there is a seperate article, cemetery, as well as a List of cemeteries that includes these cemeteries.

It seems that large cemeteries are called necropolises in Australia today, and this is likely the source of these anomalous entries. But the fact that Australians may call their cemeteries necropolises doesn't mean that they should be in this list - it's clearly intended as a list of ancient sites, not of contemporary sites.

These entries should be removed. nitus 1:22am, Oct 17, 2006 (MT)

You're right, and I'm going to go ahead and remove them. Someone will probably revert it, but what the hey. This article is clearly not intended to be about modern cemeteries. 75.153.202.25 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that some of the UK necropolises listed here may also be too modern to really belong here, but I don't want to go hog wild. 75.153.202.25 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Doremítzwr or anyone else have a reliable source for the English plural of necropolis being necropoleis? I know that's the plural in Greek, but necropolises is the only plural in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and as a native (British) English speaker who has learnt ancient Greek, -eis looks unnatural in English. I propose that -ises is reinstated, or at least the two are given as alternatives, with the OED's variant given first. FlagSteward 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary and Wiktionary, off the top of my head. All words ending in the -polis morpheme form plurals ending in -poleis. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Either necropolises or necropoleis is acceptable, but necropolises is by far the more common form in contemporary english. 75.153.202.25 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The full OED online sticks with the descriptive rather than the prescriptive. It is clear that -poleis is the plural in Greek, while -polises is the way that English usually deals with plurals of Greek -is endings. This is because the plurals of Greek -is endings are a bit unpredictable. For example, the "correct" Greek plural of clitoris would be clitorides (Gk: kleitoris/kleitorides). OED also records one instance of the faux-plural necropoli in 1968 -- an instance of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quicumque (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)