Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

asimo77 wrote:In this case codex is a word invented by GW, using Gothic (which is like pseudo-Latin). It just so happens that codex is also a real Latin word.

Wait, what?

Did they also invent "Carnifex," which just happens to also be a real Latin word?

More precisely, while GW didn't 'invent' the word 'Codex'... their pseudo-Latin High Gothic language of 40K is portrayed as being similar to (but not identical to) Latin. In that context, it tends to go with the more modern idea of using standard English-style plurals on adopted Latin words... So while 'codices' may be more correct in Latin, in the context of GW books they stick pretty consistently to 'codexes'...

I use Codices and correct anyone who says it wrong at my LGS. But I'm a grammar nazi.

warpcrafter wrote:I am going to stubbornly use Codexes, no matter what anyone else says.

Me too! Codexii sounds dumb, as does codices. CO DEXES

Like pokedexes.

Just like.. I refuse to say...

I dunno, I'm more or less always gonna call them codices.