Ah. What dictionary? I will check my sources. ... Lewis & Short have "localis" only as the adjectival form of "locus": that is, meaning 'local', just what it looks like (and is the etymon of). I don't know if L&S is on the Web. It's the Oxford Press classic; says here "Impression of 1966; first edition 1879." 2000pp or so, so I couldn't just reach over and grab it, I had to get out of my chair and get it with both hands. It's a hard life. I don't speak Latin, much -- I can if pushed to it -- but I did study it in h. s. and have stayed in touch with it all my life, so to speak, being a linguist (language scientist) by profession as well as avocation. -- Dr. Whom, Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoepist, & Philological Busybody a.k.a. Mark A. Mandel (of Cracks and Shards) --- lincicum at comcast.net wrote: > > -------------- Original message > From: "Mark A. Mandel" <thnidu at yahoo.com> > http://dragaera.wikicities.com/wiki/Meta:Dramatis_Locali > > Bravo! Only it should be "Dramatis Loci". > > According to the online Latin-English dictionary I consulted, the > translations are as follows: > > Loci=Places > Locali=Locations > > Now, I don't speak Latin (who does?), and have only studied it > informally. Also, I don't know if there is an established convention for > lists of place names in literature; but it seems to me that either of > these would be valid. > > But I could be wrong. It's happened once or twice. > > Majikjon > __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com