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.

insaniak wrote:So far as GW are concerned (and it's their made-up pseudo-latin, afterall) the plural is 'codexes'.

We're not talking about Latin here. The 'not-Latin' in 40K is a representation of High Gothic, a made-up language 40000 years in the future.

It's Codices. Remember these guys use "Dice" for the singular form of dice, they're not grammar experts

Not all of it is Psudo-Latin they do occasionally use real Latin like Aquilla (eagle), Carnifex (executioner) and Codex (book) in this case.

ChrisCP wrote:

n0t_u wrote:

insaniak wrote:So far as GW are concerned (and it's their made-up pseudo-latin, afterall) the plural is 'codexes'.

We're not talking about Latin here. The 'not-Latin' in 40K is a representation of High Gothic, a made-up language 40000 years in the future.

It's Codices. Remember these guys use "Dice" for the singular form of dice, they're not grammar experts

Not all of it is Psudo-Latin they do occasionally use real Latin like Aquilla (eagle), Carnifex (executioner) and Codex (book) in this case.

What I'm gathering is - GW has said it is spelt 'Codexes'. Therefore, given it's their damn product, that is - in fact - the plural of the work Codex - wait for it - when it pertains to a GW product. Because we've all been really dumb for years and not realised that it wasn't the latin 'Codex' it was the WHFB/40K 'Codecks'.

You may want to tell them their wrong if it really bothers you, they're not ravaging a live language after all, just a dead one, slightly more disturbing but hey - no language is being harmed in the production of these Codex.

I wouldn't bother making much of a fuss about it anyway. I will continue to write it in terms of Latin (not because some company grabbed the word, mispelt it and hid behind the guise of creativity). To me it's like the "they're, there and their" problem. One is right, in the correct context, and it only annoys you if you let it. But, there's really no point in being bothered by something so trivial. I merely came into the thread to help out by sharing my knowledge.

@Insaniak: When did dice become the common usage? I wasn't aware of it. I've always just used "die".

insaniak wrote:

n0t_u wrote:@Insaniak: When did dice become the common usage?

Sometime in the 90's, from my experience...

Seems kind of an odd decision, like they gave up on it or something

I think we should be referring to him as Gargamel by now.
There's even a picture of him that could easily be photoshoped to reflect this.