Talk:vicum

RFV discussion: July 2019–September 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

vicum

gen pl vicum

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Does not appear to exist. This is a defective noun with only certain cases attested. As those attestations are very frequent, I would expect the missing forms to be truly missing, not simply unattested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2: It seems they don't (so say the dictionaries, and a morphologically untagged corpus search for this form is made useless by the existence of vīcus) - so I've removed them from the table. The vocative doesn't make sense with that word at all (like a vocative of "some kind"). An issue that also came up with some other defective Latin nouns is how to list the lemma. I've replaced it with — because there's currently no way to indicate that the lemma is not Nominative - exacerbated by the fact that it's immediately followed by an auto-generated Genitive that can't be disabled. I suspect this is less than ideal; would it be possible to add the possibility of specifying the lemma's form and disabling the autogenerated Genitive? Brutal Russian (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Having the headword line of vicis#Latin be "—" seems very nonstandard; if vicis is attested then vicis should be the headword, with a note about what case form it is if it's not the usual (nominative) one, and if it's not attested (but some other forms, listed in the inflection table, are) then why is vicis the pagename / entry and not one of those other forms? (Is vicis the "reconstructed" but unattested nominative? Then I would say:) If we're confident enough (that vicis is what the lemma form would be) to put the entry at vicis, then the headword line should also say vicis, not "—", and the usage notes should explain which forms are attested. PS if the display of certain forms needs to be suppressed from the headword, fall back on {{head}} and manually spelling out categories like Category:Latin feminine nouns in the third declension. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I made the headword display the attested form and say which case it is; cf entries which are e.g. plural where the headword says it's plural-only rather than listing "--" as the singular and then giving "(plural: foo)". - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly RFV-Failed —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)