Talk:inodio

@SemperBlotto: Could you delete all the forms of this table? Thanks! --Barytonesis (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2017

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

inodio

The conjugation tables make no sense: if it's only found in Late Latin, then why are we labelling one of the conjugations "Classical"? The fourth conjugation paradigm probably never existed anyway; the only one for which there is some limited evidence is the first conjugation one (chiefly indirect evidence, i.e. the Romance descendants). {{R:Gaffiot}} only has the form inodiatus; Du Cange doesn't have anything. Should we move it in the Reconstructed name space? --Barytonesis (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

L&S too only have "ĭnŏdĭātus, a, um, adj. [...] Not. Tir. p. 77." Georges however has "in-odio, ātus, āre [...], Vulg. exod. 5, 21 cod. Lugd. Carm. epigr. 1606, 14 Buecheler. Not Tir. 46, 89 (inodiatus). Vgl. Landgraf in Wölfflins Archiv 12, 150."

• The "cod." (codex, manuscript) isn't a good source, but it is a source and the reading might also appear in some (old) printed editions. But of course this source would require a usage note.
• Buecheler (Anthologia latina sive poesis latinae supplementum ediderunt Franciscus Buecheler et Alexander Riese. Pars posterior. Carmia epigraphica conlegit Franciscus Buecheler. Fasciculus II Lipsia, 1897, p. 772f., IA) has "inodiari". It could depend on reading or edition though, in which case a usage note would have to be added. In any case it should be sufficient to attest more than just the participle/adjective.
  PS: Buecheler gives "CIL. VIII suppl. 13134" as source and states "14 inodiari nooum, adduci in odium". CIL. VIII suppl. I, 13134 (1891, p. 1330) has "inodiari" too. Hence it should be attested (well, at least when giving the source and the text in the entry).

As for the CL/LL stuff: If the CL forms don't get attested, they should be removed. If the forms get attested as ML/NL, then the entry has to get changed. -84.161.3.15 10:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Romanophile: are you sure about the original conjugation you put there, and which is now labelled as "Classical Latin" since this edit? I think that's the most dubious part of the entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs, and that it didn’t matter how old or new a Latin term had to be to demand the classical conjugation. Remove whatever you want. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Romanophile: "I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs": they do (maybe they shouldn't, but that's another issue). It's just that it has to be the right conjugation! And to be fair, it's not you but Aearthrise would added the qualifier "Classical"; thus it's his edit which doesn't make sense–even though he added the right conjugation table in the process. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Late Latin

Is the first quotation too early to be considered Late Latin? Kwékwlos (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)