Talk:Spelt
From NovaRoma
(Difference between revisions)
(Yes, far is emmer.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Apicius/message/3075 this message] Andrew Dalby asserts that spelt was not known in Rome in the early days. He says that our modern spelt is the Roman "scandala" and that in ancient times the grain that was used is what we call "emmer" and the Italians call "farro". He says that "alica" refers to the emmer family of grain. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|M. Lucretius Agricola]] 22:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | In [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Apicius/message/3075 this message] Andrew Dalby asserts that spelt was not known in Rome in the early days. He says that our modern spelt is the Roman "scandala" and that in ancient times the grain that was used is what we call "emmer" and the Italians call "farro". He says that "alica" refers to the emmer family of grain. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|M. Lucretius Agricola]] 22:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::There is really no controversy about this: Mr Dalby is quite correct, and his view is accepted by mainstream scholarship. The Oxford Latin Dictionary, for example, translates "''far''" as English "emmer". | ||
| + | |||
| + | - [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 21:24, 22 June 2007 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 22 June 2007
In this message Andrew Dalby asserts that spelt was not known in Rome in the early days. He says that our modern spelt is the Roman "scandala" and that in ancient times the grain that was used is what we call "emmer" and the Italians call "farro". He says that "alica" refers to the emmer family of grain. M. Lucretius Agricola 22:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
- There is really no controversy about this: Mr Dalby is quite correct, and his view is accepted by mainstream scholarship. The Oxford Latin Dictionary, for example, translates "far" as English "emmer".
- Cordus 21:24, 22 June 2007 (CEST)
