Is my question unclear, vague or off-topic; why is it so; why wat it deleted and how to improve it?
I thought an interlingual, historical, sociological question would be on topic.
After trying to understand the differences between Res and Obiectus I asked why( what where the historical or social reasons) the Latin Phrase Res Iudicii changed to Subject of Judgment/Trial.
The litigant(s) would be Subiectus iudicii while the dispute( or guilt) would be Res iudicii.
I have a difficulty illustrating these concepts in the English language, where I would use Litigant for the person and Subject for the dispute.
I have a problem with a dispute( a concept/ an abstraction) being the Subject and I find it dehumanizing to fail to refer to the litigant as a Subject. Subject in my view holds more human nuances/more human value than Litigant. By refering to the Litigant as a Subject of something we stress that the Litigant is a person, a human and an aggent of the trial/ a player of that game called trial.
I was asking why the terms evolved this way and had their meanings changed.