I thought it would be funny to do an avatar saying “mulier sapiens”. But I’m suddenly worried about cases ‘n’ thingies. I’m pretty sure “homo” was nominative, so “mulier” is fine like that, but do you have to adjust “sapiens” into a feminie form, and if so into what? Thank you! 
Hi Emily,
I welcome your revision of that term Yes, homo sapiens is a nominative and can be used as a subject, e.g.
The imperfect participles and the adjectives ending in -ns all share the same forms except in three cases:
singular accusative: masculine and feminine: sapientem, neuter: sapiens
plural nominative: masculine and feminine: sapientes, neuter: sapientia
plural accusative: masculine and feminine: sapientes, neuter: sapientia
So unless you’re dealing with a neuter, you needn’t worry. In other words: mulier sapiens is fine. Cheers 
Brilliant. Thank you!
ETA: look! look! I have it! squeals
You’re welcome. utinam multae mulieres sapientes sicut te hic adsint: may a lot of knowing women like you be present here
Salue, Aemilia! Welcome to the forums!
I find that extremely clever! good on you! Yes, I suppose the best counterpart to homo is mulier while the best to uir is femina, right?
Vero, Amans! Feliciter adsunt hic multae, quas certe reueremur diligimusque.
pretends she had actually thought of that 
Yes, that’s a good point! For some reason I had totally forgotten about femina, but I was re-reading a Catullus poem and mulier was at the forefront of my mind. (The poem where it says a woman’s words should be written in swift-flowing water - haven’t got it by me so cannot quote.)
Why do you write here “sicut te”? Why not “sicut tu”? It should be a subject as same as “mulieres”, shouldn’t it? If I’m wrong, could you please explain about this to me? 
Well spotted anatta that was also my beef. I would have used tui similes also.
I agree with Anatta. If we remove the ellipsis, the full sentence is something like “utinam multae mulieres sapientes sicut [tu sapiens] hic adsint”
Hello all, and thanks for the criticism. I think I moved too fast there, but what would one say in modern languages? Would you say “wie du” or “wie dich” in German, Anatta? I think it would be “comme toi” in French and “come te” in Italian. I reckon this is what made me choose the incorrect form.
German: Er ist so gross wie ich… (nom. for both)
Yes, it’s nominative in German, but emphatic/accusative in French and Italian, as you see (I had to make that mistake the hard way when I was there, until someone finally corrected me). It is precisely this duality between French and German that leaves us English speakers with the choice of either the nominative or the accusative. “He’s just as big as me!” you might say. Though with our German influence, a more classical English would say, “He’s just as big as I.” The same goes for “than.”
Indeed. The English case system is basically dead. c.f. ‘that is me’ which we might expect to te ‘that is I’.
It’s the same in Norwegian.
Han er større enn jeg. vs. Han er større enn meg.
He is bigger than I vs. He is bigger than me.
MODO: IS EST MAIOR QVAM EGO.
(vel "is me est maior)
When comparing, e.g. with “than”, the noun being compared to, should be in the same case as the comparing noun.
There was an article in the SF Chronicle or some other newspaper around here a couple years ago titled Gune Sapiens, but yours is far less ostentatious
All this mess with which case to use after than, like, as, etc. is usually attributed to the improper interpretation of conjunctions as prepositions.
“That am I.” “That is I,” would put far too much importance on the singular “that,” which practically never happens in other languages, including German and Italian alike (Dass bin ich. Lo sono.). Saying “It’s me,” or “That’s me,” is perfectly correct English, borrowed grammatically from good ol’ French: C’est moi!
All this mess with which case to use after than, like, as, etc. is usually attributed to the improper interpretation of conjunctions as prepositions.
Calling it improper is hardly fair; it’s the grammatical standard of languages like French, which forms a grand pillar of our very own tongue, as well as Italian and others. Moreover, Shakespeare, who literally single-handedly moderized English, used both forms for “than” frequently. I refer to Webster:
Main Entry: 2than
Function: preposition
: in comparison with
usage After about 200 years of innocent if occasional use, the preposition than was called into question by 18th century grammarians. Some 200 years of elaborate and sometimes tortuous reasoning have led to these present-day inconsistent conclusions: than whom is standard but clumsy <Beelzebub… than whom, Satan except, none higher sat – John Milton> <T. S. Eliot, than whom nobody could have been more insularly English – Anthony Burgess>; than me may be acceptable in speech <a man no mightier than thyself or me – Shakespeare> <why should a man be better than me because he’s richer than me – William Faulkner, in a talk to students>; than followed by a third-person objective pronoun (her, him, them) is usually frowned upon. Surveyed opinion tends to agree with these conclusions. Our evidence shows that the conjunction is more common than the preposition, that than whom is chiefly limited to writing, and that me is more common after the preposition than the third-person objective pronouns. You have the same choice Shakespeare had: you can use than either as a conjunction or as a preposition.
This is the advantage and beauty of English: variety.
As I’m sure you know, that which is correct is defined by usage, and that which is proper is arbitrary and usually ignored. When I said “improper”, I did not necessarily mean “bad”. Besides that, my statement had a built-in escape mechanism in that that was part of the attribution, not my own words
Does anyone else find it funny that the Romance languages take their words for swimming pool from the Latin for a fish pond?
Did the Romans have swimming pools?
Maybe as here the women who swam in them were fishy.
It’s the same in swedish
Alla är dumare än jag.
But homo already includes women, doesn’t it. Homo doesn’t mean “man” like the latin vir, it means “human being”.